Re: duplicatability or copying is problematic

From: George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:25:45 -0700

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
>
Received on Tue Jun 15 2004 - 16:30:32 PDT