Re: duplicatability or copying is problematic

[George Levy]

Hi Stephen Let me add my grain of salt to Bruno's post. The No Cloning Theorem applies to the physical duplication but not necessarily to the duplication of information that is carried by a physical substrate. For example, you could very well make a copy of a DVD that reproduces exactly the information stored in the DVD without reproducing exactly the atomic arrangement of the DVD. The crucial question is whether our consciousness is aware of its physical substrate at the atomic (Planck) level or only at a much higher biological, neurological or psychological level. Would we agree ("Yes Doctor") to an organ substitution at the high level or would we hold out for a a substitution at the Planck level? If we allow copying at the high level, then Bruno's thesis survives. How much resolution should the copier have? I don't know the answer to this question. I don't even know if copying (increasing measure) has any ethical significance or any other value or drawbacks. George Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno,       Does your thesis survive without the notion of duplicatability or copying? As I have pointed out, QM does not allow duplication and I am hard pressed to understand how duplication can be carried out in classical physics.     If we merely consider the Platonia of mathematics we find only a single example of each and every number. If we assume digital substitutability there would be one and only one number for each and every physical object. Where does duplication obtain in Platonia? If duplicatability is an impossible notion, does your thesis survive?   Stephen