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