Spyman

I think it is a combination of 1 and 3 as Danijel Gorupec says in post #27, (+1).

 

If we replace electricity with a water system such that we have a pump, a looong hose and a water wheel at the other end then it's obvious that when the pump starts it will push out water and cause a pressure to build up at the outlet and draw in new water which causes a lower pressure at the inlet.

 

These two pressure fronts will move out through the system towards each other and eventually meet somewhere in the circuit. Between the pump and the pressure fronts the water will be flowing and independently of where the water wheel is located it will start to turn when one of the pressure fronts is passing and the water starts to flow locally.

 

If we turn off the pump or shut a valve in the circuit then the already flowing water will continue to flow and move the pressure fronts for a short duration until friction has decreased its momentum and the pressure has evened out.

This is directed at Spyman...

Very good questions, (+1), however I will not likely be able to give you a satisfying answer, because you ultimately seem to be asking for the limits of how much or how fast you can change a person before he will cease to exist, and I don't have a good answer for that.

 

Your assertion is that when cells in your body die, and are the replaced by new cells ( ie you age ), there is a 'natural' ( whatever that means ) continuity of your existence. As opposed to the 'artificial' continuity experienced by the transported clone.

My assertion is that there is continuity of one life and existence and another life or existence can not claim that specific continuity.

 

My words 'natural' and 'artificial' was an attempt to discern between this continuity, 'natural' was ment as anything physical that can happen and cause a remaining mark on the object, like the crack in my pen example or the scar in Tar's example. And the opposite, 'artificial', was ment for the case when identical marks are imprinted on the object without that physical cause acting on the object.

 

So what if you had a miniature transporter that killed off just one cell at a time and reinserted it into your body at the same location as the one that was killed ? Would that still be a natural continuity ? I don't see a difference from the natural cell replacement process.

 

Now what if you had many such micro-transporters, and over the period of one week, a month, a year, you replaced all the cell in your body with 'transported' ones ? You have, in effect, cloned/transported all of you, but piecemeal, so that each cloning/transporting is equivalent to the 'natural' ( again, what does that even mean ) process. Are you still 'you', or is this different ?

 

And what is your reasoning ?

If you replace pieces of me, inside of me here where I am, then I don't consider it to be neither cloning nor transportation. We already do replace human body parts surgically and I don't consider a person with, for instance, a new heart to be a new person, even though the heart comes from someone else. But if the brain was surgically replaced I would no longer consider it to be the same person.

 

If pieces of me would be replaced at the same pace and similar to the biological aging procedure then I don't see a difference. But if you replace all of me instantly then I think you have created a new body and self. Somewhere in between there is a fuzzy grey area where I would be very unsure whether you have only changed the old self or created a new one.

 

At the very extreme I can accept that if the replacing pieces are similar and there was great care to not interrupt the consciousness, then maybe it would be possible to replace the body 'around' the self.

Sorry for the very large post and if I happen to repeat myself, I am trying to catch up and need to backtrack to important points.

 

You are, however, making an assumption that "you" already experience continuity of existence in a form other than that which would be experienced by G2.

No, I don't make that assumption, I think the copy will experience equal continuity of existence as the original.

 

You-at-10-years-old is just as dead as G1. Your link to 10-year-old-you exists pretty much entirely in the patterns that have been preserved as memories, personality, physical characteristics, etc., all of which are also present in G2. G1 isn't made up of the same matter as G-at-10. G1 simply preserves some elements of the pattern of G-at-10. The difference, of course, is that there is a clear moment where G2 replaces G1, while the erasure of G-at-10 and emergence of G1 seems more gradual, but the end result is ultimately the same.

 

There is a different you that retains the memories of the old you, but is demonstrably not the same you.

We develop and change when we age but the changes are not randomly replacements that just happens, the aging is a natural process.

 

If a take a pen and break it in two halves then you can claim that the pen is broken or that it has changed, but you can't claim that it suddenly is another pen, it's still that pen even though it's no longer identical to how it was before.

 

Likewise the 10-years old Spyman is not dead, he no longer exists as a 10-year old boy but he still exists as me. Granted I have aged much and gained a lot of experience and memories since then but I am still Spyman.

 

 

Again, we're assuming as part of the premise that Spyman 1 post-transport is "more" a continuation of Spyman 1 pre-transport than Spyman 2 is.

 

Instead, it may be the case that we have Spyman 1 step into the transporter, and Spyman 1a who steps out on Earth while Spyman 1b steps out on Mars.

 

Spyman 1a is certainly not Spyman 1b, but neither is he Spyman 1 any more or less than Spyman 1b is.

This is a different assumption and this time I say yes, I do think that the aged original is a "more" continuation than the new copy. Because Spyman 1 has physically changed into Spyman 1a by natural processes while Spyman 1b was artificially created from new material.

 

The mind of Spyman 1a is natural and physical continuation from Spyman 1 with a track history, but the mind of Spyman 1b was 'jump started' from Spyman 1's current data. Spyman 1b don't have this track history, he has the same data but the causes for them are only virtual, the natural and physical processes that shaped Spyman 1a did never happen to Spyman 1b, he only inherited the end result of them.

 

Let's go back to the example with the pen, if the broken pen is glued together again and then duplicated in the 'transporter'. Since it is indistinguishable from the original the duplicated pen will also have an identical glued crack even though no one did ever break it. It's obvious that the copy have a different time line and a fake history.

 

Also to take into consideration is that the group of particles that constitutes Spyman 1 has worldlines through spacetime and they (mostly) continue to stay together and constitue Spyman 1a. None of Spyman 1b's particles have worldlines going through Spyman 1.

 

My conclusion is that Spyman 1a has a closer relation to Spyman 1 than what Spyman 1b have.

 

 

What this means then is that, as Eise said earlier, you think you are special and you have a soul.

When people speak about "souls" they bring in religion and supernatural spirits or ghosts existing outside of physical laws and I consider consciousness to be a physical process taking place well within the laws of nature.

 

You yourself agreed that the two Spymans would be two distinct individuals, that makes them both special even when identical.

 

The minds in those two Spymans would also be two distinct consciousnesses, special although they would be exactly identical.

 

 

Why? Consciousness is a process. Does a flame have continuity? The flames continue to dance in the same place, and arise from the same fuel source, but the atoms that are reacting are different, they are emitting different photons. A flame is being continuously created anew in the same place.

 

It's like the adage about not being able to cross the same river twice. It looks about the same. It behaves about the same. But the water that flows through it isn't the same water.

Well, I agree that consciousness is a process and for me that means both changes and continuity.

(But I like this post and will upvote it even though I seem to disagree with you.)

 

A fire continues until it is extinguished, even though the flames are consuming new fuel and emitting different photons.

 

Likewise a river continues to exists even though its path may change and the water flowing through it is constantly replaced.

 

The mental state that makes up "you" right now is not the same mental state that will make up "you" five minutes from now. It will be similar, but not identical. If you stretch it out to a long enough time, most of the matter won't be the same either, as your body cycles through raw materials. It will be slotted into roughly the same pattern, but it won't be the same atoms.

Yes, the mental state is changing but the changes are not random, the procedure of how the changes happens is also a part of the consciousness, when a computer program is processing new data the program itself is the same and have continuity.

 

The body is an organism and even if it like the river replaces building blocks and go through changes, the organism itself has a continuity. Without changes and continuity I wouldn't consider an organism to be alive.

 

How we changes and what we change into is also an part of who we are, a part of how we define ourselves and our mind.

 

So what is it about you that has an independent continuous existence for the duration of your life if not the pattern (which can be copied)?

This sentence is very confusing in the context, I don't know if it's a language problem or you are trying to make a trick question. It mostly seems to be in conflict with what you are otherwise arguing and surprisingly well in agreement with my stand.

 

Do you consider the "pattern" to have independent continuous existence for the duration of your life?

 

Obviously I consider my mind and body to continuously exist for the duration of my life.

 

 

I was looking at the scar on my knee, earlier, thinking about what makes a person continuously themselves. I am 61. That scar had plenty of time to shed cells, to grow new cells, to have carbon molecules replaced by other carbon molecules. That scar might not have a single piece of matter in common with the matter around when a third grader's knee hit the ground in a game of tag and was rent open by a piece of glass, but you will have no problem guessing who that third grader was. And everywhere I have gone since, there I was, with my knee with the scar on it. There is definitely a continuation. It is not a "new" me, every instant. It is the same me, with the scar, still alive, the next time the clock ticks.

 

And I do not care if the clone has my scar, and my memories. He is not me. He is at best another instance of me. But he is not THIS instance.

This section illustrates my thoughts very well, +1.

...the continuity of consciousness you are trying to establish is an illusion.

The thread is moving to fast for me and I am sorry that I don't have time to make a proper argument or reply to all questions asked of me right now. However I am not convinced that the continuity of consciousness is an illusion.

 

If particles and objects have physical continuity through spacetime then a consciousness as a result of the structure of the brain and the signals processing therein should also have a continuity.

Not in the way put it. Look at this way: whilst you were asleep you were given a lethal dose of barbiturates. Spyman 2 continues Spyman 1's life. The point being, I'm suggesting, is what constitutes 'you' is just information. Whether you would actually do something or not is not the point.

StringJunky, I think I fully understand your point, the question is if you did understand mine?

 

I am not contesting that "what constitutes 'you' is just information", I am saying that Spyman 2 is not Spyman 1 even though Spyman 2 have both indistinguishable body and mind from Spyman 1. Spyman 2 can continue Spyman 1's life, but Spyman 1 would be dead.

 

Spyman 1 don't want to be dead, Spyman 1 don't want Spyman 2 to live his life, Spyman 1 want to live his life as Spyman 1.

 

What you would do or not reflects how much you consider the duplicate to actually be you and not only a copy of you, which is my point.

 

Do you not agree that from the reference of Spyman 1 that Spyman 2 is another individual with a different origin?

I thought about this overnight and I think I have grasped where some of you are going with this. You believe "I" to be some kind of thing that can be packaged up and moved around and when reactivated it just continues as before. So in a way you see the mind, the self, as an entity in its own right that can be run anywhere (I think this is what StringJunky means when he describes mind as information). Hence a careful mapping of my mind and the right program means we could copy my mind and run it in a computer simulation. The hardware is relatively unimportant. Thus not only do you see the mind as separate but you also see it has a continuity in its own right. Package it up, move it on, fire it up and "you" just wake up and keep on cognising. Sort of like Frank Tipler's idea for immortality - if we can emulate all possible conditions then all life can be resurrected.

 

You think that there would be continuity of consciousness for me using this transporter. My self has been packaged up - my programs, operating system and hardware if you will - and all we have to do is reconstitute that and "I" will quite happily continue on. Probably without even being aware of the momentary lapse in awareness.

Well put, I think you explained the opponents views better than they did themselves, +1.

 

This discussion reminds me of the movie: The 6th Day with Arnold Schwarzenegger. He gets cloned against his will and decides to take his life back from the clone, but finds out that it is he himself that is the clone and cooperates with himself to defeat the bad guys.

 

However I don't know if I have managed to make myself clear, so I want to make another go at it:

 

I share others view that the mind is nothing more than configuration of physical signals in the brain and if they could be duplicated then the mind would be copied too. So in a global sense there would be a continuity of the consciousness when a new body and mind takes the place of the old body and mind.

 

But I would still not step into any such 'transporter' voluntarily. If a knew I was going to die or there was a very high risk of death, because of some other reason, then I could consider it because of this continuity. A copy living my life would be better than no one living my life, but as long as I have a good chance to live this life 'myself', with current mind and body then I will do my best to avoid any harm to the myself that I have right now.

 

My first argument is that even if you make a perfect copy into the smallest detail, this copy would still only be a copy. There is really no difference if you copy a human with a mind or something as simple as a ball, the new ball will be indistinguishable from the old ball, but if you place them beside each other it is clear that they are two distinct objects even if they are exactly identical. Thus the new you will not be you, it will only be an replica of you, albeit indistinguishable in body and mind.

 

Secondly, even when there is a global continuity of the consciousness, if everyone of the distinct individuals in such a chain of duplications can define the beginning and termination of their own existence, then they should strife to improve and prolong their very own part as much as possible. Handing over the future to another individual, even if it's an indistinguishable replica both in body and mind would be to admit defeat and resign.

 

Here are a few examples where I try to highlight my stand:

 

1) Lets say that you are working with a very important step in a production line where your decisions affects the diversity and quality. One day you get an apprentice and you teach him all you know. You proudly reports to the management that he now can perfectly duplicate your production results, but at the next recession you get fired because he is younger and thus have a higher future value to the company.

Even though you can be happy for the success of the young apprentice and take pride in the fact that your method will continue to be used in the future at the factory, would it still not suck for you as a individual to be replaced and discarded?

 

2) Someone made a clone of you without your permission and now this other you is demanding to get everything you have, would you give your spouse, children, home and everything to the last cent to your unwanted copy of yourself?

 

3) Someone made a clone of you without your permission and now the authorities demands that you should take the punishment for a crime that your other you committed, would you voluntarily take the replica's place in jail for several years?

 

4) For safety reasons the original you entering the 'transporter' is not destroyed until the data has been transmitted and a verified fully operational duplicate has been created at the exit location. Now the personnel at the entrance tells you that your replica has been confirmed and ask you to commit suicide by jumping down into a large meat grinder which recycles your body parts for other travellers.

Would you happily die a painful death because of the knowledge that your replica will successfully continue your life where you left off?

(Painful might seem a bit excessive but is there to point out that you at the entrance would be selfish and not want to be sacrificed.)

Every time you fall asleep your consciousness dies. Cue for a favourite of mine: "How I hate those little slices of Death we call Sleep" - E. A. Poe

 

It doesn't matter if you don't wake up... you will not know you are dead, but your replicant will carry on your life's work. The code that is you still has the potential to increase in size and complexity.

I don't consider my consciousness to be dead while I am sleeping, granted it's working on a lower level but the brain is still processing data and functioning, the 'code' is still there and alive, such that when someone says my name I can recognise it and wake up.

 

If I would be sedated and secretly be put in the transporter then the replica wouldn't know that he was an duplicate or that the original had been killed. But if I would be forced into the transporter while awake then I would know that I was going to die, as that is my current conviction, and the replica that inherits my conviction and memories would know that the original was killed and that he was a replica.

So what is it that makes the original different?

They are not different, they are indistinguishable from each other.

 

The important thing is that they are two objects physically separated from each other.

 

Lets assume that I would take one of those two DVDs in each hand and hide my hands behind my back. If I first show you one DVD in my right hand and then hide it again behind my back, seemingly shuffling the discs before I show you one DVD in my left hand, then you can't possibly know if I showed you one of the discs twice or if I showed you both and in which order.

 

I however who did the secret shuffling have been very careful not to mix the two DVDs and know perfectly well if I showed you the same one twice or both in a specific order.

 

Even if they are exactly identical they would still have a different timeline and physical location. During the creation there is a one way connection where the copy duplicates data from the original but after that they would no longer have any connection or shared data.

 

If I would make a scratch in the original DVD then they would be different, there would not suddenly be a second scratch on the copy and everyone, (who knows where the original and the copy are located), can agree that it was the original that got this scratch.

 

Similar if I destroyed the original, it would be the original that got destroyed and not the duplicate.

 

I don't think there is any difference between the physical disc and the data on it, if there is a change in the data on the original then this change would only be on the original. If I wiped the data from the original then it would be the original data that got destroyed and not the data on the copy. The copy would still maintain the data that was copied to it during replication.

 

Thus they are two different objects with their own sets of data even though they are exactly identical.

 

If a human was replicated like this then I don't think the consciousness would be transferred to the replica, I think a new consciousness would be created which would be exactly identical and totally indistinguishable from the original.

 

None, other than SJ1 will have considerable familiarity with what SJ2 is thinking and feeling. Two distinct people are made with identical molecular makeup. The essence I'm trying to get across is that, all we are is code. All copies are valid as me, at the instant thay are made. The universe couldn't care less which one is the real me.

While I agree that all we are is 'code', I don't think that one copy is valid as the original or as another copy, the Universe might not care which is which, but it will certainly know which one it is that was the original and which copy that was made when and where.

 

Like Graeme I would not voluntarily step into any such 'transporter'. The original 'me' don't want to die and there is very little consolation in the knowledge that somewhere else another 'me' will be created.

I don't think it makes any difference to the question whether we are the DVD or the film on the DVD. Both the film and the DVD can be identical, but will still not be the same one. The original will still be the only original and the copy will still only be one copy. If you place them next to each others you can clearly see that they are not the same one, they are identical but still two separate objects.

There is also this thread: How to solve causality dilemmas?

But it seems as the OP have forgotten about these two threads.

Have scientists actually observed particles while they are moving at those speeds and seen something added (or nothing added) to the particle as it's moving? Or are they particles being moved to fast to observe?

Scientists have colliders like the LHC that accelerates particles up to very high speeds and then lets them analysing their collisions.

 

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world's largest and most powerful particle collider, and the largest single machine in the world, built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) from 1998 to 2008.

 

 

When running at full design energy of 7 TeV per beam, once or twice a day, as the protons are accelerated from 450 GeV to 7 TeV, the field of the superconducting dipole magnets will be increased from 0.54 to 8.3 teslas (T). The protons will each have an energy of 7 TeV, giving a total collision energy of 14 TeV. At this energy the protons have a Lorentz factor of about 7,500 and move at about 0.999999991 c, or about 3 metres per second slower than the speed of light ( c ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

Which also can be watched as an animated movie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_Hears_a_Who!_(film)

I am sorry if I didn't express myself clearly, I never meant to say that Mordred was wrong or that gravity can pull light to a stop.

 

It seems we all agree that a light ray propagates through space with the speed of c, and that gravity causes the light ray to take a 'detour' from the straight line an distant observer measures the traverse length along, such that when timed from far away it will be delayed.

 

If we would send a light signal close to a black hole it would descend with the speed of c and then climb up on the other side with the speed of c, but the time for the light ray to pass through the gravity field will take longer than length/c as measured by a distant observer.

(An observer close to the black hole would measure the same light ray to locally pass by with the speed of c.)

 

 

BTW Congratulations Mordred to becoming a Resident Expert!

(Somehow I have managed to miss when this did happen.)

Is it posible to increse the speed of light,if light waves pases black hole,not too close,not too far.. just using black holes gravity?!

No the speed of light is invariant. All observers will see the speed of light As the same value in a vacuum. Gravity does not alter c.

I am not an expert on Relativity, but from my understanding a light ray would be slowed down if it passes close to a black hole as measured by a distant observer. Locally the speed of light is c but when measured from a different gravity field it is not.

 

"The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic solar system tests of general relativity. Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present. The time delay is caused by the slowing passage of light as it moves over a finite distance through a change in gravitational potential."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_effect

I agree that life is needed for death to happen, but I don't see how death is needed for life to happen. Life happens before and until death, not after or on any condition that death must occur.

Do you have any real examples of causality dilemmas that can be solved?

IMHO it would be better to start with proper answers to questions raised since your last visit.

The interesting thing about imatfaal's video is the question

 

How does the cup of tea get past the cycle forkhead?

 

Hey - I know we have covered all this... but this vid which was further down robertybob's link explains the lot, again.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHpAifN_2Sw

 

 

But I can't seem to link it - never mind.... It is the vid entitled "Centripetal vs centrifugal" 8th one down.

Here you go:

 

I hook everything up and turn to the frequencies that produce patterns and nothing happens. I can get one or two simple patterns but that's it.

From the output coaxial contact on the signal generator I can tell that it is not ment to power large loads like solenoids.

 

According to the manual for the signal generator the output is only made to handle loads with an impedance of 50 Ohm or higher.

 

A product sheet for a vibration generator with the same name "2185.00" says max input 6V/1A which gives a rough value of 6 Ohm.

 

I think you might need an amplifier, the output from the signal generator is likely to weak to fully power the vibration generator.

 

When the vibration generator shakes the plate it also acts as a loudspeaker and should make a loud sound depending on how powerful the movement are. If the vibrator doesn't get enough current or the voltage amplitude is to low then the vibrations will be weak and it should also have a weak sound. How does your equipment sound, weak or powerful?

 

Here is a clip I found on Youtube with sound recording for comparison:

 

WARNING: Please lower your volume. The audio in this clip is extremely load!

 

I think michel is saying that the alien isn't looking at a billion-year-old Earth because Earth currently occupies "now" and something else is now located at the place and time a billion years ago that billion-year-old Earth occupied.

But that doesn't make sense, because Michel should now that we have observational evidence from astronauts at the Moon, looking towards the 1.26 light-seconds distant Earth and seeing the Earth as it was 1.26 seconds in their past:

 

Earthrise: Taken by Apollo 8 crewmember Bill Anders on December 24, 1968, at mission time 075:49:07 (16:40 UTC), while in orbit around the Moon, showing the Earth rising for the third time above the lunar horizon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise

 

Earth and Moon, showing their sizes and distance to scale. The yellow bar represents a pulse of light traveling from Earth to Moon (approx. 400,000 km or 250,000 mi) in 1.26 seconds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Relationship_to_Earth

For example:

_we suppose that there is a galaxy "NOW" 1 billion LY away from us. We cannot see this galaxy NOW, so it is a supposition.

In this galaxy, we suppose there exist an earthlike planet with an alien looking at us (that we cannot observe because it is NOW.

We suppose that this alien NOW is observing the Earth as it was a billion years ago. That is also a supposition. All suppositions. There is no physical way to communicate with this earthlike planet, because it is NOW. That makes a lot of suppositions.

Because if we are indeed "moving" through time, then this alien, if existing, is not looking at the Earth a billion years ago. He is looking at something else.

 

That we have no clue about.

Assuming that we are moving through time and all the suppositions in your example is true, can you explain why this alien are not looking towards where the Earth was one billion years ago and don't see Earth as it was then? Why would we not have a clue about the alien view?

To increase pressure in a 5 litres tank you need to press more than 5 litres of oxygen into it and when the pressure reach atmospheric pressure the remaining 5 litres won't flow out by itself.

I don't have any statistics but considering that we train rescue personnel and have specialised tools for vehicle extrication, I would think that a lot of lives are dependent of successful removal from car wrecks. Even if the car don't roll over there can easily be structural damage in a violent crash that causes the doors to get stuck and a victim can still be trapped although the doors can be opened.

 

"Extrication includes patient assessment, treatment and removal of the patient from vehicle. Some departments only carry with them minimal tools such as one set of jaws of life and are only capable of simply "popping" a door off and then must step away to allow the medical rescuers in or to allow a more dedicated heavy rescue team in who has more equipment. Extrication units are supposed to not only have many different kinds of extrication tools, but medical equipment, oxygen, and backboards as well. Extrication is the entire process from fire protection, power unit disengagement, vehicle security, patient security and treatment, removal of vehicle from patient, removal of patient, and transfer to ambulance. Extrication is not just simply popping a door off."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_extrication

I remember Mr. Clarkson made a mention of this in Top Gear a couple seasons back, but anyway - how do you get out of a car with gull-wing doors if it's rolled over and ended on its roof? I haven't found information about it, but I can't really imagine that engineers have disregarded such a glaring safety hazard.

How likely is it that a normal car has the doors stuck due to deformation of the roof and why is such safety hazard of less concern?