From: Stathis Papaioannou (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Dec 04 2009 - 06:03:16 MST
2009/12/4 Stuart Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> I assume that you are referring to the no clone theorem, which says
>> that it is impossible to perfectly duplicate a given quantum state.
>> However, this ultimate level of copying fidelity cannot be fundamental
>> to identity,
> "Cannot" is a very strong word. "Very unlikely" is more apporpriate.
I'll stick with "cannot". Your quantum state changes from moment to
moment, but you still feel you are you; therefore, something less than
perfect duplication is required to maintain personal identity.
> But my point is simply that we shouldn't assume a copy is perfect
> until we have strong evidence it is perfect.
It doesn't need to be perfect, but it needs to be as close to the
original as the original would be after an event that we normally
don't consider as identity-changing.
-- Stathis Papaioannou
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT