Re: Uploading (w/ Attempts at Humour)

Mike C. (
Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:38:44 -0500

>From: John K Clark <>
>Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:16:42 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: Uploading
> (U.Sov.) On Mon, 24 Mar 1997 Wrote:
> >They [copies] would not be me. A would think it was A, B would think
> >it was B.
>A would think it was A, B would think it was A, both would be correct.

I think I am who I am.
I do not think I am that other person
who thinks It is who It is.
If B=A then there is only A.
There is only one A.
Next in line is B.
Take a number/letter.

>You walk into a matter duplicating chamber, there is a blinding flash of
>light, when your eyes clear there is a man who looks just like you standing
>to your right. I have 3 questions.
>1) How could you determine if you were the "original" (whatever that means)
> or the "copy"?

That would depend on how it was done which seems theoretical.
You just designed the duplicating chamber, you tell me.
If I was standing on one side of the chamber
and I now appeared to be on the other side of the chamber
I would know I was the copy.

Personally I would not care about the past.
I am who I am.
I does not matter much if I existed a minute ago
unless there is a reason for it to.
Is there?

>2) Why should you even care?

I would not care,
except if the methods used were destructive
because I do not want to be destructed.

>3) If you somehow found out that you were the copy, what if anything would
> you do?

I may say "Thank you very much for copying your self,
I'm glad to be alive"

> >They are exposed to different memes. They evolve diferently.
>Certainly, as time went on the two would start to diverge.

As one billionth of a nanosecond passed they would have diverged.
Any amount of time no matter how small is time.

> >One difference, no matter how small, means they are not the same.
>Don't drink a cup of coffee, it will change you far more than Quantum
>Uncertainty ever will.



I regretfully accept these changes
as long as I do not seem to experience pain.
I would rather not be this particularly unstable.
Some day I hope I will solve that problem.
Unfortunatly there does not seem to be much I can do about that right now.

> >Different atoms = different people.
>Then you are quite literally a different person than you were one year ago
>because your atoms are different, it doesn't matter.

It does matter.
My matter has changed.
Is there a single molecule that has been with me as long as I have been
(excuse the fact that I have only been for one segment of time)?

>Atoms have no
>distinguishing marks, no scratches on them to tell them apart.

Location and structure is used to presently distinguish between them.
An atom becomes an isotope and is still that type of atom, only different.
It is like saying all apples are the same from a distance.
If you can tell there are two apples the are obviously not the same apple
as their place in spacetime is effected by different forces
and they are subject to different physical laws,
meaning the actions their particles are participating in are not the same
and thus the are not the same apple. as they are the sum of their particles.

Mark my words.
We will be more able to distinguish between atoms eventually.
It is written, so mote it be.
I am or at least at some times seem to be
the almost but not quite so semi-omniscient predictionarrationator
of that which has not yet at any particular moment in spacetime
revealed it's self to absolutely every one in the whole of existence
excluding me. :-)

>In Science
>you can exchange one atom of Hydrogen with another one and the system does
>not change at all.

Of course it changed, you just switched atoms.
Switching is an action.
An action usually requires change.
At one time it had atom A.
At another time it was -A.
At another time it was -A + B.

>If atoms themselves have no individuality I don't see how
>on earth they could give this interesting property to us.

How many types of sub-atomic particles does it take
to convince you that all atoms are not all the same?