On 2/16/2012 5:45 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 12:36 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
There is a problem with this way of thinking in that it assumes that all of the
properties of objects are inherent in the objects themselves and have no relation or
dependence on anything else. This is is wrong. We know from our study of QM and the
experiments that have been done, that the properties of objects are definite because
of interdependence and interconnections (via entanglement) between all things within
our event horizon. You seem to be laboring under the classical Newtonian view. To
have a consistent and real idea of teleportation one has to consider, for example,
the requirements of quantum teleportation
<http://www.tech-faq.com/quantum-teleportation.html>.
It is things like that that are preventing COMP from being a realistic
explanatory theory. :-( I like COMP and UDA because I see them as ideas that have
errors can be corrected. This is not to say that my own ideas are not error filled!
We are all, including me, finite and fallible.
Onward!
Stephen
That's essentially just saying 'No' to the doctor. Since the doctor can only
substitute stuff that is functionally equivalent at a classical level you won't say
'Yes' if you think the quantum entangled states of the stuff he's replacing are
essential. Note however that the replacement WILL have quantum entanglements; just
not the same ones. So you might say 'Yes', accepting that your consciousness will be
different in some way and yet still avoid being a p-zombie.
Brent
Hi Brent,
Please read what you just wrote and then what I wrote to ACW again and think about
it. Is there a difference between theory - as in what we believe to be the case - and
facts - that which *we* have no choice but to agree is true, in your mind?
Sure. Theories are stories we invent to explain facts.
Hi Brent,
And we should never mistake those stories to be anything other than stories that we
invent to explain fact.
I am telling you that experiential evidence exists,
What is it?
Try this http://physics.aps.org/articles/v2/32 and this
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/966.short and this
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2007/May/PhotosynthesisWorksQuantumComputing.asp
and the mathematical theorems as well,
I'm aware of the QM no-cloning theorem, but it doesn't apply to classical
teleportation. Lawrence Krause, in "The Physics of Star Trek", estimates that the
energy required to determine the state of each atom in a human body is so enormous
(like a supernova) that it could never be implemented. However, mapping the neural
network of a brain is a far smaller problem.
So Kraus' argument does itself show at least one aspect of how classical
teleportation is problematic. I rest my case.
But his teleportation, which is based on transmitting the position of every atom in a
human body is far more than required for Bruno's argument which only requires transporting
the brain's functional structure. The position of atoms in your body change continuously
with no influence on your consciousness.
Additionally, in consideration of the "mapping the neural network" idea, how
exactly are you going to overcome the fact that the more precisely you measure the
positions of every atom in a brain the less information you can gather of their momenta?
Irrelevant. Computation takes place at the classical level, so you only need classical
level information.
if we are going to implement a simulation of a brain that allows for continuation then
we had better be able to map both the position and the momentum data down to the
substitution level. The problem is that the substitution level is molecular in scale, we
know this because chemical neutransmiters play a vital role in brain behavior.
That doesn't follow. The neurotransmitters are released in quantities such that their
diffusion is well modeled classically. In any case their function is to excite the
synapse, which could be done electrically by an artificial neuron. There is nothing to
indicate that the substitution level must be at the molecule level, much less at the
quantum state of molecules. You are no doubt right that any mapping/reproduction would
introduce a discontinuity in the stream of consciousness; but this isn't an important
objection since a hard blow to the head or some anesthetic does the same thing.
The fact that a tiny amount of LSD will totally change your "state of mind" is
sufficient proof of this.
The amount isn't that 'tiny' in terms of the number of molecules.
You see this is the kind of problems that get completely glossed over in UDA. Many
of you balk that I am making a big deal about physics, but without physics we would
simply not be here to have this conversation.
As a physicist I'm happy to discuss the physics.
Brent
Onward!
Stephen
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4814 - Release Date: 02/16/12
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
