Re: Particles, Objects, Change (RE: Uploading)

Mike C. (
Sat, 29 Mar 1997 02:48:29 -0500

>From: John K Clark <>
>Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 10:13:32 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: Uploading
> (Mike C.) On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 Wrote:
> >>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.
>If the chamber had a red dot and a blue dot then it would not have
>cylindrical symmetry.

Please describe a cylindrical symetric chamber
which would negate the ability of identification.

> >>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 have been known to retract things from time to time, but only when it is
>clear I am wrong and No, I most certainly do not want to retract anything.
>I never said that a brain didn't die, I said nobody died.

...and you think a brain is not a body?
If your brain was on the wall would you be dead?
How do you define dead?

> >All objects are processes.
>That's debatable, Moravec things so, I'm not sure.

Can you think of a thing that is not made of moving particles?
I can not.

> >All processes are objects.
>Objects have a position and a momentum and can be destroyed.

...neither created nor destroyed?
The rain( process) in Spain( position) falls( at what momentum I am unsure)
mainly in the plains(more specific position).

>Where is arithmetic located?

In your mind, where doe that exist?
If a thing exists it has to exist somewhere.

>What is the momentum of arithmetic?

Momentum of thought.

>How could I destroy arithmetic?

Do not allow it to be thought.

> >If I were to copy my self EXACTLY no thing would happen because two
> >things can not occupy the same position in spacetime.
>No, that's only true for fermions. Two identical bosons, like photons of
>light, can occupy the same position in spacetime but not so for fermions,
>The Pauli Exclusion Principle tells us that 2 identical electrons can not be
>in the same orbit in an atom. If we didn't know that then we couldn't
>understand Chemistry, we wouldn't know why matter is rigid and not infinitely
>compressible, and if we didn't know that atoms are interchangeable we
>wouldn't understand any of that.
>Imagine what the world would be like if what you say is true. When I look at
>you the photons of light coming from your face would collide with photons
>coming at right angles to us scrambling them. Vision would be a useless way
>to obtain information about the world.

Why would photons travelling at right angles to us scramble ALL of them?

> >I would like you to prove that a thing does not occupy a unique

> >position in spacetime.
>What is the radius of an electron?

if it exists in 3-D it has one.
I do not have good enough eyes or a small enough ruler.

> >We need not know for a thing to be.
>Not true if you're talking about a change my consciousness, if the change
>is so small that I can't detect it then my consciousness has not changed.

Who says you are 100% aware of what you are thinking?

> >The smallest change is change.
> >Do you disagree?
>There is a difference between a small change and a large change.
>Do you disagree?

One is small,
one is large.
Size is relative.
Change is change.

> >[Showing a chart of Fermions and Bosons]
> >Am I going to have to disprove all that too?
>Yes, and that would just be the start of your problems. If you insist that
>atoms have individuality then you must disprove every bit of that chart and
>do far more too, like explaining why matter is rigid,

Is it?

>why Chemistry has the
>laws it does,

Those are laws that have been assigned to it.

> why Biology is possible ...

If it were not possible it would not exist

> >If you exchange positions they are still the same distance from each
> >other, so why bother?
>No reason to bother at all if atoms have no individuality, the system would
>be unchanged. On the other hand if as you say each atom is different then
>exchanging atoms will change the system.

Does it have to noticably change the system?

>This has been tested experimentally
>many, many times.

How many people argued about the shape of the earth?

> >How about if I scatch an electron off?

It is possible to remove an electron from an atom right?

> >You are saying when the distance between two things is 0 there are
> >not two things.
>No, I am saying the probability of finding 2 electron, or any Fermion,
>zero distance apart is zero.

"Same" logic,
no two things at 0 distance.
Kind of strange to believe in a distance of 0( even in millinanometers).