RE: Duplicates are Selves

From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Sat Apr 05 2003 - 14:02:01 MST

  • Next message: Lee Corbin: "RE: Duplicates are Selves"

    Harvey writes:

    > I keep insisting that I agree that after a copy operation, both copies are
    > "me", and "I" am both copies. I still don't want any of "me" killed. I
    > would no more want a copy destroyed just because it is a duplicate, than I
    > would give up one of my arms on the theory that I already have another one.
    > I can do more with more copies.

    So we have two scenarios:

    1A: Do a duplication and leave the original intact
    1B: Do a duplication and destroy the original

    and you express a strong preference for 1A over 1B.

    What about these two scenarios:

    2A: Do a duplication and leave the original intact
    2B: Don't do a duplication, just leave the original alone

    In other words, 2A is to get a copy made, and 2B is to not be duplicated,
    just to live out that moment of your life as usual.

    It seems that the relative effects of 2A vs 2B are pretty much the
    same as 1A vs 1B. But I've never heard anyone expressing a sort of
    "duplication imperative", a feeling that any missed opportunity to
    duplicate would be as bad as destructive duplication. I wonder how
    you would view the two choices (1A/1B vs 2A/2B).

    Hal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 05 2003 - 13:36:06 MST