From: Mike Dougherty (msd001@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2008 - 19:36:10 MDT
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin@rawbw.com> wrote:
> Oh, okay. But you don't defend "close duplicates should merge
> at least as easily as they are created"? Or 'twas someone else
> said that?
I don't defend it. I don't deny that I said it either. I meant that
by whatever mechanism that a duplicate is created, there should be as
simple or complex a machine to reverse the process. If by teleporter,
then I would note that in the Star Trek universe there were a few
occasions where individuals were recovered from the pattern buffer at
the expense of new experience in their alternate awareness substrate.
Perhaps that is a nod to the difficulty the machinery would have in
managing anything beyond a 1:1 mapping over some distance within a
sufficiently small time. To jump to another fictional universe
employing transporter technology, I suggest a Stargate Atlantis
example: an alien race known as Wraith feed on human Life Force (so
capitalized because I want to treat it as a named property which I
can't explain) Their race can only grow in number if there are
sufficient numbers of humans to consume, and it's a moderately
successful plot device. I always wondered why this would be a problem
for aliens that can teleport a human via upload->storage, then
reconstitute the person from storage back to flesh&blood. It would
seem an easy solution to produce any number of copies from storage
using whatever fantastical power source drives the ship as the input
energy for the reconstitution. I know this is completely divergent...
sorry.
Given further consideration of my statement you have quoted above, I
would like to put a strike-through over it. Or white-out, or whatever
the Web2.0 mechanism for a retraction might be. (hmm... Does such a
thing as retraction even exist in the always-instantly-everywhere
world?)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT