Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

As for the original concept, in which the original copy is destroyed, that essentially kills you and leaves a copy. A computer harddrive with the same data on it may function the same, but the two separate harddrives are still that-separate.

Nobody cares whether they are separate or not, as long as they do the same thing. Your definition of "original" is hence perfectly useless, which means that you will never be able to derive any meaningful statements using that definition.

I love it when things are perfectly useless. Such perfection with no function!

But nah, of course they do. When things are separate, they go through separate things. A hard drive may start with the same stuff won't end with it. A human teleported and destroyed will experience different things than their original would have done.

That's because things are defined by their surroundings.

Let's take a mental experiment: take a random person, make an exact copy ofthat person and then put them both through the exactly same physical experiences (down to a quantum level; yes, this is impossible in reality, but - thought experiment). Will they end up different, or the same?

Different. Every decision a human makes is almost random, based around some natural/imposed restrictions. There are a variety of viable options that exist within a given situation which could equally be chosen. For example, one could check the window, the other the door.

Why are you so sure of that? After all, I have two identical humans experience the exact same physical situation (let's pretend for a moment quantum uncertainty doesn't exist), what process will break the symmetry between the two?

[TD1]

Different options. If the people are the same, and they view say 50 options as equally valid, they're not likely to both choose the same one.

[Graknorke]

No. Just like there are no real benefits to being a different person entirely, e.g. if you took some DNA and created a new person from the original. They would have no benefit over the original. We're not arguing benefit, really, just that they would in effect be different people, albeit very slightly at first.

Well you're a different person to an hour ago, and an hour before that. I don't see you saying that you're against the progression of time though.

[Loud Whispers]

I got a phone call today.  The caller ID said "New York Human."  I picked up.  Nobody was on the other end.  Then a machine said "Goodbye" and hung up.

The spambots grow bolder.

They're in this thread sire!

[Sergarr]

Different options. If the people are the same, and they view say 50 options as equally valid, they're not likely to both choose the same one.

But what option a person chooses is based on his physical condition. By maintaining the exact same physical conditions, you ensure that they both make the same choices.

There's the example of reverse btw. Using magnets to affect moral choices made by people.

[TD1]

No. Just like there are no real benefits to being a different person entirely, e.g. if you took some DNA and created a new person from the original. They would have no benefit over the original. We're not arguing benefit, really, just that they would in effect be different people, albeit very slightly at first.

Well you're a different person to an hour ago, and an hour before that. I don't see you saying that you're against the progression of time though.

Being against the progression of time is an alien concept, but were it to keep me at this exact state forever? I doubt I could see much wrong with it, given it would avoid the problems associated with death and losing family from immortality.

And yea, I'm a different person from a year before. That person is dead, and he'd heavily object to me taking his place. Unfortunately, I did, and someone will take mine. But the thing is, just like teleportation, me and past-me are different people.

Different options. If the people are the same, and they view say 50 options as equally valid, they're not likely to both choose the same one.

But what option a person chooses is based on his physical condition. By maintaining the exact same physical conditions, you ensure that they both make the same choices.

There's the example of reverse btw. Using magnets to affect moral choices made by people.

Okay. But the same person with his double in the same room, even under the influence of magnets, will still have options open to them, and may choose different options, if they are all of similar merit. If they were constrained to two options, then it's still likely one will choose the other...but then you get to the fact that each is deciding how to regulate their breathing, each is moving muscles to relax them at different times (Given that, no matter their similarity, they're still going to change at least slightly different times in which to move, and not be in complete sync.) Being in complete sync would very likely in itself make them try to stop being in sync, as well.

[Graknorke]

That person is dead, and he'd heavily object to me taking his place.

Really? That must suck.

[MagmaMcFry]

No. Just like there are no real benefits to being a different person entirely, e.g. if you took some DNA and created a new person from the original. They would have no benefit over the original. We're not arguing benefit, really, just that they would in effect be different people, albeit very slightly at first.

Well you're a different person to an hour ago, and an hour before that. I don't see you saying that you're against the progression of time though.

Being against the progression of time is an alien concept, but were it to keep me at this exact state forever? I doubt I could see much wrong with it, given it would avoid the problems associated with death and losing family from immortality.

And yea, I'm a different person from a year before. That person is dead, and he'd heavily object to me taking his place. Unfortunately, I did, and someone will take mine. But the thing is, just like teleportation, me and past-me are different people.

Different options. If the people are the same, and they view say 50 options as equally valid, they're not likely to both choose the same one.

But what option a person chooses is based on his physical condition. By maintaining the exact same physical conditions, you ensure that they both make the same choices.

There's the example of reverse btw. Using magnets to affect moral choices made by people.

Okay. But the same person with his double in the same room, even under the influence of magnets, will still have options open to them, and may choose different options, if they are all of similar merit. If they were constrained to two options, then it's still likely one will choose the other...but then you get to the fact that each is deciding how to regulate their breathing, each is moving muscles to relax them at different times (Given that, no matter their similarity, they're still going to change at least slightly different times in which to move, and not be in complete sync.) Being in complete sync would very likely in itself make them try to stop being in sync, as well.

Thought experiment, dude. Perfect copy means perfect copy, and exact same conditions means exact same conditions, and since those conditions include any universal RNGs, every person's actions are deterministically fixed (up to an uncollapsed quantum distribution), so the two people will always stay perfectly in sync.

[Xantalos]

I smell a philosophy shitfest what's being discussed

[TD1]

That person is dead, and he'd heavily object to me taking his place.

Really? That must suck.

Nah, I let him out for walks now and then.

But shush, everyone thinks he's already buried.

-snip-

Not necessarily. All exact same conditions means is exact same opportunities. One person, as I've said before, may choose a different thing than the original if it were of equal merit.

You could argue that exact same means they have to choose the exact same path...but that seems unlikely. That makes it seem like every life is heading on a straight, predetermined path as the one option they choose is the option they'll always choose, given they'll always be under the exact same conditions as an identical under the exact same circumstances-which I find unlikely. An identical person may deviate from the original's decisions, simply through whimsy, or a slight difference in the balancing of options.

[MagmaMcFry]

As I said, since the RNG for the human's behaviour (if it is even non-trivial) is copied along with the human, the behaviour will be the same too.

Any universe without any external factors is deterministic, and any universe with external factors can be converted to one without external factors simply by redefining the scope of the universe to include those external factors. Now since the deterministic universe is a condition, it will be copied along with the human, and the two universes will proceed in perfect unison.

[smirk]

Oh, man. Free will vs. determinism. You should probably take this to another thread before it gets even more out of hand, folks. This kinda mess is what the philosophy and religion threads are for.

[TD1]

Heh, fair enough. Neither theory, free will or deterministic, are essentially unprovable and have no bearing whatsoever on life.

[Helgoland]

Oh, man. Free will vs. determinism. You should probably take this to another thread before it gets even more out of hand, folks. This kinda mess is what the philosophy and religion threads are for.

Or, y'know, just stop. All these thoughts have been hashed out a million times, there's no use repeating that without any new input.

[Wolfhunter107]

So there is actually a serious chance that I might move to Australia. And I'm not sure that I really want to leave Maryland, but...