Re: Uploading, Streams of Consciousness, and Particle Physics

Mike C. (
Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:02:39 -0500

>From: John K Clark <>
>Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:47:22 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: Uploading


> (Mike C.) On Tue, 25 Mar 1997
> >If I was standing on one side of the [duplicating] chamber and I
> >appeared to be on the other side of the chamber I would know I was

> >the copy.
>And if the chamber had cylindrical symmetry you could not tell if you were
>the copy or not.

If I was standing in a cylinder with a red dot where the original was
and a blue dot where the copy would be
I could know who was the original.
It is useless to argue about the design of the replicating chamber
unless we are designing it.
Do you want to do that?

>Suppose that one second after you first saw your double, a bullet hit him in
>the back of the head and his brain exploded. Regardless of whether you are
>the copy or the original you still have all your memories and you still have
>a feeling on continuity with your past, just as you do now, so nobody died.

It's brain is dripping off the wall and it is not dead?
Do you want to retract that?
I would not be dead.
It would( be brain-dead).

>If two phonographs are synchronized and playing the same symphony and you
>destroy one machine, the music does not stop.

The music from the destroyed machine stops.
I would not like to be the machine that stops playing music.
The symphony of one machine is not the symphony of another.

The music I would have been listening to would have stopped.
It would have become a new sound.
I would not be listening to the same music.
I can distinguish between music in mono and stereo.
Mono is not the same as stereo.

I have tried synchronizing music before.
I've had my fill of DJing and playing with mixing boards.
Different machines play different speeds, different qualities,
different waves, different sounds, different musics.
If I stop spinning and another DJ replaces me
it would not be my music any more.

>I think our key disagreement is that you think we are an object, I think we
>are a process.

All objects are processes.
All processes are objects.
An action requires a thing to act.
A thing requires action to exist.
A particle is a wave.
A wave is a particle.
I try to make make no distintions between them.

>I can make an exact copy of a this post,

According to Frank Tipler "An exact copy is no longer a copy.
It is the original.".
In order for it to be the exact original it must not be a copy,
it must have been the original all along.
So any copy is not the original
unless it phases into the original
which would require it to have occupied the same position in space and time
during it's entire existence.
If I were to copy my self EXACTLY no thing would happen
because two things can not occupy the same position in spacetime.
There is only one me.

>lots of copies may exist in the world, but they are all the same post.

If they are the same they do not exist in several positions in spacetime.
They are not the same.
They are copies.

>You can delete your copy, but I still have mine so the post still exists.

Your post would still exist.
My post would not.
If I destroy my post and yours survives
they are obviously not the same post.

>It would be crazy to say that in order to get the most out of it
>you should only read the original, there is no original,
>and information does not occupy a unique position in space.

I can understand that an original can not remain static
in a dynamic equation.
I would like you to prove
that a thing does not occupy a unique position in spacetime.

By the way, according to the United Nations'
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 1:
All human beings are endowed with reason.
There is not a human being which is crazy.

>A brick can't be copied exactly, so it doesn't have these properties,

What properties?

>thus it makes sense to talk about two different bricks.
>The fundamental question you have to ask yourself is;
>are we more like bricks or symphonies?

a brick is a symphony of particle interaction conducted by nature,
a symphony is a solid performance or fails to be worthy of it's name;
a brick may have it's parts thrown together haphazard,
a symphony as such is called free-form jazz.

How different are a brick and a symphony?
Know ye a difference between a hawk and a handsaw?
That seems not a fundamental question to me.

>I'm not a thing. The word "I" should not be a pronoun but a adjective,
>an adjective modifying matter. I am not matter, I am the way matter reacts
>when it's organized in certain complex ways.

The play is the thing.
Then you are an action, a thing.
Dare ye question an action as being?

> >As one billionth of a nanosecond passed they would have diverged.
>Why? One billionth of a nanosecond is far too short for human consciousness
>to detect. For people "now" is about a second long.

We need not know for a thing to be.
The smallest change is change.
Do you disagree?

> >Location and structure is used to presently distinguish between them.
>You're in a different position than you were 5 minutes ago, but presumably
>your identity has not changed.

Yet in shorter a span the heavens were made,
1, 2, 3.

>Trying to develop a theory of identity or
>consciousness based on position is a bad idea.

Position is among an infinite quality.

>Where does consciousness exist?
>Where does "red" exist or "fast" or "beautiful" or the number "13"?

They exist where they do.
Look, ho, I summon... "13".

>These questions have no answer because they make no sense.

Before you make sense of it the sense must be seen.

> >How many types of sub-atomic particles does it take to convince you
> >that all atoms are not all the same?
>An atom is not a bag of sub-atomic particles that occasionally releases its

Does nothing enter an d nothing leave?
Surely this way it has not always been.

>that would be like saying somewhere in the human body is a
>"word bag" that gradually releases its contents as language,
>and when it's empty we become mute.

Your lungs hold no air that escapes gradually?

> >Mark my words. We will be more able to distinguish between atoms
> >eventually.
>Then most of the Physics done this century has been a waste of time.

People waste time when they eat and they breathe,
go to work, and they gossip, have sex, and they sleep.
They race towards their grave
with their eyes on their feet,
they have continued to fall from their logic
since long before this century.

> >>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 the system had atom A.
> >At another time it was -A.
> >At another time it was -A + B.
>If you're right then The Identity Of Indiscernibles is false and so is most
>Science done in the last 90 years, because the foundation of modern physics
>is the idea of Exchange Forces, and that is a direct consequence of The
>Identity Of Indiscernibles.

Most physicists born within the last 90 years are no longer.
Are they any wiser than me?

>The first philosopher to examine the principle of "The Identity Of
>Indiscernibles" was Leibniz 300 years ago. He said that if there is no way
>to find a difference between two things then they are identical

He has said it, so it must be?

>and switching the position of the objects
>does not change the physical state of the system.

If I place my heart in my hand does it not bleed?

>Until the 20th century this idea had no observable consequences because
>nobody could find two things exactly alike.

There were no things alike just as Leibniz had seen.

>Things changed dramatically when
>it was discovered that atoms have no scratches on them to tell them apart.

How about if I scatch an electron off?

>Suppose you're looking at two electrons,
>you may think that you can find a difference in them,
>because one is here and the other one is not.
>How do you know the particles are not changing positions?

The world is moving and every particle on it is changing positions.
What does that have to do with being able to tell
if I am looking at one group of paticles or another?

>Would the system be any different if they did?

One bounces this way, one bounces that way,
different reactions, yes they are different.

>By asking these sort of
>questions and using The Identity Of Indiscernibles we can derive The Pauli
>Exclusion Principle, and that is the basis of the periodic table, and that
>is the basis of chemistry, and that is the basis of life. We can also
>discover the fact that there are two classes of particles, bosons like
>photons and fermions like electrons.

Q Fermions( matter) |Boson(force carrier)
u I II III |
a Up |Charm |Top/Truth |Photon = Elec-mag
r ------------------|-------------|-------------|--------------------
k Down |Strange |Bottom/Beauty|Gluon = Strong
L Electron Neutrino|Muon Neutrino|Tau Neutino |Z^0 = Weak
e ------------------|-------------|-------------|--------------------
p Electron |Muon |Tau |W^+ = Weak
t | -
o |

Am I going to have to disprove all that too?

>Experimentally we can't measure the quantum wave function F(x) of a particle,
>we can only measure the intensity of the wave function [F(x)]^2 because
>that's probability and probability we can measure. P(x) =[F(x)]^2 is the
>probability of finding two particles x distance apart. Now let's exchange
>the position of the particles, the distance between them was x1 - x2 = x is
>now x2 - x1 = -x . The Identity Of Indiscernibles tells us that because the
>two particles are the same, no measurable change has been made, no change in
>probability , so P(x) = P(-x) . From this we see that [ F(x) ]^2 = [ F(-x)]^2
>so the Quantum wave function can be an even function [ F(x) = +F(-x) ] or an
>odd function [F(x) = -F(-x) ] , remember (-1)^2 = (+1)^2 =1.

Sorry, you lost me.
If we are to communicate I suggest converting math into english.
They can be converted.
You are doing alot of things and I don't know y.
There is 100% probability of finding two particles x distance apart
when x is an unknown.
If you exchange positions
they are still the same distance from each other, so why bother?
I don't see any change in x
because I still don't know what x is.
If I do not know what x is
x might be even, odd, or neither.

>Both solutions have physical significance, particles with integer spin,
>bosons, have even wave functions, particles with half integer spin , fermions,
>have odd wave functions. If we put two fermions like electrons in the same
>place then the distance between them, x , is zero and because they must
>follow the laws of odd wave functions , F(0) = -F(0) but the only number
>that is it's own negative is zero so F(0) =0 . What this means is that the
>wave function goes to zero and [F(x)]^2 goes to zero , thus the probability
>of finding two electrons in the same spot is zero, and that is The Pauli
>Exclusion Principle.

You are saying
when the distance between two things is 0 there are not two things.
I must sincerly agree.
The trick is that you can't put two particles in one spot,
unless the spot is made of more than one particle.
Particle A = spot B, particle C = spot D.
A+C=B+D (2 particles and 2 spots).
Spots have to be made of something.