scerir wrote:
<.................a copy is not the original.....................>
That's because a perfect cloning machine
can not exist [*].
And that is the proof of
the existence of human soul......
[*] W.K. Wooters, W.H. Zurek: Nature, 299, 802, (1982)
Damien wrote:
No. At best, it's proof of human uniqueness (a moral/political lesson Peter
Medawar drew decades ago from immunological specificity).
And I do wish people would stop using the term `clone' to mean `exact
duplicate', which a clone isn't. The convenient >H term is `xox' (from
`xerox').
Correction.
A probabilistic perfect xoxing machine is possible.
No more human uniqueness? [>No more human souls?]
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9705018
But since this machine is "probabilistic" we can get a
perfect xox but also ... a lot of rubbish.
scerir
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:34 MDT