Re: copy method important?

From: Norman Samish <>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:36:41 -0700

I'm no physicist, but doesn't Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle forbid
making exact quantum-level measurements, hence exact copies? If so, then
all this talk of making exact copies is fantasy.
Norman Samish
----- Original Message -----
From: "rmiller" <>
To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <>;
<>; <>
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 10:05 AM
Subject: copy method important?

Though we're not discussing entanglement per se, some of these examples
surely meet the criteria. So, my thought question for the day: is the
method of copying important?
         Example #1: we start with a single marble, A. Then, we magically
create a copy, marble B--perfectly like marble B in every way. . .that is,
the atoms are configured similarly, the interaction environment is the
same--and they are indistinguishable from one another.
         Example #2: we start with a single marble A. Then, instead of
magically creating a copy, we search the universe, Tegmarkian-style, and
locate a second marble, B that is perfectly equivalent to our original
marble A. All tests both magically avoid QM decoherence problems and show
that our newfound marble is, in fact, indistinguishable in every way from
our original.
         Here's the question: Are the properties of the *relationship*
between Marbles A and B in Example #1 perfectly equivalent to those in
Example #2?
         If the criteria involves simply analysis of configurations at a
precise point in time, it would seem the answer must be "yes." On the
other hand, if the method by which the marbles were created is crucial to
the present configuration, then the answer would be "no."

R. Miller

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.8/22 - Release Date: 6/17/2005
Received on Sat Jun 18 2005 - 14:39:53 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST