Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

EC

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1807
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by EC

  1. Well, not anything like Everest, but it's possible on a much smaller mountain. Just meant that I could appreciate being at the top or one without the climbing. Way too scared of heights to attempt a huge climb. Just watching someone do it in a video get's me panicky feeling.
  2. I know this is for OP, but I'd personally just want to see the view from the top of the world and would be fine with taking a helicopter to the top to do it, as I'd classify a chopper ride as much safer than attempting to climb a mountain for that experience.
  3. EC

    Health & Evasion.

    Beauty is something you were born with; it can be somewhat enhanced or reduced based on health, but, in general it's something that just metaphysically is. Therefore, for the most part, it's irrelevant when it comes to ethics, except maybe at the extremes, i.e., massively overeating, etc.
  4. EC

    Health & Evasion.

    So a woman (or a man too, I guess) can not be beautiful if she was born with something like diabetes or sickle-cell anemia, etc? This may a subject we will have to disagree on, although I think you are trying to apply a principle too wide.
  5. EC

    Health & Evasion.

    The bolded part is overall false, although often true in practice. Beauty involves symmetry for the most part. A beautiful woman born with diabetes, for instance, would still be a beautiful woman especially in her relative youth. As to the second part, I don't understand. Are you saying all these people are ugly, and this is somehow self-caused (overweight?)? I've never even thought of judging any of these people on the "beauty scale" fwiw, except Rand who I agree wasn't physically beautiful imo.
  6. EC

    The Transporter Problem

    @DonAthos You are correct that what I have postulated has evolved, but that's only because I'm trying to envision a realistic scenario that involves "FPE" destruction, nondestruction, or the ability to transfer and therefore avoidance of destruction (assuming that's possible). I'm trying make to sure this whole debate isn't a form of debate that's essentially just talking about "squared circles" or something that is impossible in reality. As to everything I said about entanglement, that's mostly to suggest that specifically the fundamental principles of reality that might make such teleportation possible in reality might also provide a way out of the conundrum of "FPE death". I've been thinking hard on this, and have decided the subject needs to happen on a more abstract level that includes human minds but isn't limited to only them, so that people aren't sneaking in preconceived notions about their thoughts on man in general. A general AI running on a specific "computer" vs another otherwise identical computer is something I will discuss in the future. I'll be back with more when I completely flesh out everything I'm thinking of exactly in the near future. But, I will leave one thing here for everyone to possibly discuss if it interests them: Imagine putting a living human inside of a skin tight "force field" such that the entire human body is completely separated from the environment with zero space between the person's body and this "force field". The person is then vaporized while inside the force field such that his now free flowing particles that remain are still confined to the volume left inside this force field and can not mix with the outside environment. Then "through the 'magic' of future technology is put back together exactly the same as prior to vaporization (likely impossible due to quantum fluctuations due to the uncertainty principle, and the second law of thermodynamics, etc. *which my be key to resolving all this due to loss of information at the quantum level*). Would the identical mind that results then share the same FPE with the mind that existed before it's substrate/brain was vaporized? I think the answer is still no because the existence of the substrate was discontinuous. The substrate that causes any mind to exist must exist continuously, with no discontinuities for a particular FPE of a mind to continue existing. This is fundamentally different than a person experiencing a coma, a alcohol induced blackout, etc., or more abstractly a general AI having it's processor switched off then turned back on after some period of time, because the substrate (brain, memory, processor) never cease to exist even if it's unused for some period of time. Vaporizing a mind's substrate that is the cause of it's emergence is fundamentally different than those examples because there was a finite period of time that even the capability of mind "production" (and therefore that mind's previous FPE) was completely destroyed and obliterated. When the substrate is then rebuilt and the mind reactivated must be a new FPE because the previous FPE lost the ability to exist for a finite period of time.
  7. EC

    The Transporter Problem

    These are all things I've thought about, and are all "problems" I have no answer for. These things and the issues I mentioned are all reasons why I earlier said I give this type of technology even being possible, let alone created, a 50/50 chance at best. I offer zero advice or knowledge on making any of this practical (nor ever claimed to), if there's a way around all these things. Since it's a thought experiment being discussed, all I can say is "future tech" could make it possible. I mean entangled pairs are created together, and these couldn't be as one half already exists. If somehow someone got around that and could entangle the particles, we'd need to hope that it held all the needed information without us ever being able to know any of it. I couldn't see any way around at least partial wave function "collapse" during beaming. We'd probably have to accept minimal signal loss as a fact. Another huge problem would be "reassembly" of the random gas configuration of all these various types particles that just arrived at the destination. Again, using the black box of future tech for this, but imagine the amount of energy you would have to add to the system (which would also cause decoherence and also ruin our plans) just to catalyze and/or fuse this gas into a solid state. Anyways, the point is I think all of this is likely always to be impossible, and we share the same issues as to why. That said, without knowing exactly how any future technology could ever overcome all these issues *if* it was created and these issues were overcome, the technology would have to be based on quantum principles especially entanglement. Without that, the idea of teleportation goes from potentially plausible to certainly impossible.
  8. EC

    The Transporter Problem

    To be 100% exact, only exactly two things are transferred via entanglement in this example in a non-local way. The exact quantum state of the living being is perfectly "shared" with it's new distant "copy" due to the fact that the particles of both were placed in superposition with each other prior to "transport", and for a split-second (this would need to be exactly one Planck Time) the original mind runs in parallel win the copy mind, so that the same FPE exists, for that instant at both minds to allow for non-discontinuous transfer. The "trick" for this to work is, and the reason I'm suggesting this has to be a hyperfast Plank Time, is that for this to work there has to be zero information transfer between the two minds, just a simple brief "awareness" or the "FPE" you guys are discussing. The two brains have to run literally in parallel, non-locally, for the FPE to exist as the same FPE for the briefest possible moment, and it would literally have to be the briefest possible moment to guarantee that zero information travels between the parallel minds before the original is destroyed. If this non-local parallel entanglement of the two minds lasted long enough for new information to travel instantly than this would be impossible, since fundamentally what is forbidden from traveling at FTL speeds is information.
  9. EC

    The Transporter Problem

    It absolutely does. I'm saying that via the process he is suggesting I would agree with him that the original FPE dies, but I'm also stating that way of going about this technology would also be impossible, rendering the whole discussion moot. The proposed teleportation model here assumes classical (non-quantum) behavior implicitly, but this regime has been proven countless times to ever increasing degrees of accuracy to be quantum mechanical. Quantum entanglement one of the most important processes/phenomena at the heart of quantum mechanics, and is nearly solely responsible for the "weird" label, since at it's heart it involves non-locality. This isn't "pop-science"; it's hard science science that has been proven to be true with very little room for doubt. Also, I never said anything about "transporting particles via entanglement" nor implied it. I said the particles first need to be entangled, such that every new particle is in the same quantum state with it's old twin, and then essentially "transported" or beamed conventionally (the same way with any particle beam that exists today at speeds approaching c to the destination for "reassembly" using some future tech. The entanglement process for one would just allow us to create an exact "pattern" of the original without having to do the (impossible, due to the uncertainty principle) direct observations. Our new set of "copy" particles would each be directly and perfectly correlated with the "original" set of particles, and once they arrive via conventional travel to the destination our futuristic tech will then cause them to "reassemble". I like that Eiuol used the words "parallel processing" for the linked minds of the original's to the copy's (although he is not describing how this could be possible, I am). This is exactly what I'm thinking of for the split-second both exist together before the original is "destroyed", and what will allow for the FPE transfer via strong entanglement between the now two existing minds in a non-local process. This is exactly how quantum computing works for what it's worth. One thing that QM forbids though is the transfer of information via entanglement because information it would allow information to travel faster than the speed of light, which is impossible. The reason why I don't think the above would forbid a temporary mind linkage to transfer FPE from the original to the copy is because no information is being transferred, the same information exists at the about to be destroyed original person's mind and the newly created copy's mind. But for that split-second that they both exist the minds run together in parallel, so the FPE transfers smoothly with no discontinuous period that would otherwise equal death of the original.
  10. EC

    The Transporter Problem

    Without the usage of entanglement, the technology will never exist for people to be "disassembled" and "reassembled" because it would be impossible to know, even in principle, the locations and momentum of every particle that makes him up, let alone create a "pattern" and reconstruct him from it. Entanglement get's around that problem, because we never would have to know all the specifics (which are literally impossible to know due to the uncertainty principle) for the entangled particles to create the new person. I'm saying this because DonAthos said above that he's certain in the future this technology will be possible as he's described it, and I'm saying I'm certain, with zero doubt, that is impossible due to the uncertainty principle, no cloning principle, etc. Again, the only loophole that solves every issue being debated in this thread is entanglement. I'm not guessing.
  11. EC

    Colonialism/imperialism

    I completely agree with this, and was thinking the same a couple days ago due to some statements in a different thread. I was thinking that the American Indians were the terrorists of their time, and that it is ridiculous that today the left finds fault with a rights respecting country for dealing with them harshly as a result.
  12. This is absolutely false, and I won't be responding to your nonsense from here on out, and others should do the same. Also, I have quite a lot of Indian dna in me, and that in no way changes the fact that Indians had no concept of property rights, and in no way owned the land they were supposedly "displaced" from. But again, this statement from you shows that you are likely irreconcilably an evil person at your core, so this ends our exchange.
  13. You would be correct that I'm not a racist. Even more than that, I don't even care if all the people are human, let alone from a particular race, or cultural group. I.e., they could be rational machines or rational aliens. The only thing that matters to me is that whatever these rational beings are, they respect the individual rights of all other rational beings.
  14. Do you agree or disagree with this book's contents. You seem to be, on the one had, just offering summation of it's content, but then on the other hand, defending it's points and definitions when challenged. It's confusing, to say the least, given the context of this being an Objectivist forum while the summary given so far seems to completely ignore the possibility of a capitalist society's possible existence. Fast forward 500 years to where huge amounts of the human population live throughout the solar system, why can't the entire earth then be defined as an entire "culture" that exists as a single whole political unit instead of arbitrarily broken up as it is now? Why would there only be these two options of Imperialism or Nationalism in this extremely likely future scenario? I'm just confused what the purpose here is, and why it's so focused on the past (which is mostly irrelevant) instead of the future?
  15. EC

    The Transporter Problem

    Yeah, I understand. But it's trivial to see the specific technology I linked to becoming more compact and miniature, with an ever increasing bit rate, and wireless in the future as it develops. But that's a tangent to what I'm suggesting. In the case of the original mind/FPE transfer via entanglement that I suggested the apparatus would be the tech that scans/entangles/beams the pattern, and the entanglement between the original person's brain's particles with that of the copy's brain's particles would be the means of transfer, instead of via electromagnetic waves or electrical signal. Small but still macroscopic objects have been put into entangled states recently, so I think it's at least plausible in the future that entire brains/minds could also. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-04-26/quantum-physics-entanglement-shown-massive-objects-first-time/9687076 So if that can be done then the original and the copy's mind would be "linked". Would it be to the degree needed to prevent the "death" of the original's FPE? I can't know for certain one way or another, but intuitively I think it would.
  16. EC

    The Transporter Problem

    First to be clear, I don't understand Eiuol's reasoning on possible mind-linking of an original person and a possible copy. Second, I only proposed my own version of this "hive mind" thing under the very specific circumstances of a "transporter copy" of a person being created without the original being destroyed in the process AND the "copy" being created using only particles that were fully entangled with every original particle. I only suggest this because this type of mind transfer from the original to the copy while both exist for some time period as the only way to avoid the death of the original person's FPE. I'm not certain such a thing could be done because of some rules involving quantum mechanics, such as the No Cloning rule, but it's at least as plausible as the whole teleportation idea anyway. SL specifically said that any type of mind linking would involve the paranormal, or however he worded it, but that's absolutely not true as science already allows for rudimentary mind links or "hive minds", although not in the way I'm proposing for this specific purpose. https://bgr.com/2018/10/02/brainnet-tetris-game-experiment-study/
  17. What would "a bunch of 'unaccountable sociopaths'" have to do with a fully capitalist government? If and when a capitalist government starts to exist for the first time in human history in, say, the United States, why would it be a bad thing for it to spread throughout the whole world? This would be, far and away, the greatest achievement in the history of mankind.
  18. This is more of general thought than an exact comment on all of this, but I see no reason why a future capitalist government that serves the entire earth would need to be classified as either Imperialist nor Nationalist. It would be neither, and would show that the premise of this book is just a false dichotomy.
  19. EC

    The Transporter Problem

    I think I understand your argument completely now, though I don't agree with it. I would say that when you get knocked out, have amnesia, or in some way lose consciousness is a completely different thing than when your brain ceases to exist. During conventional loss of consciousness the brain still exists and can restart at any point it regains enough health to do so. In the case of it being vaporized the brain ceases to exist and thus a mind "loaded" on it can never be restarted, even though a perfect copy could at some point later. Would I be wrong in assuming after the last sentence in your response that you would believe as a result that a person who died now, and who's body completely decays over the centuries could be brought back to life as the *exact* same person, say, ten thousand years from now using similar technology to the "reassembly" phase of the proposed transporter tech *if* somehow we could take a complete scan of their mind/body in our own time that could be saved to use for this future technology? I'm starting to wonder how far into the arbitrary this whole conversation is starting to go now. If I had to put a number on the possibility of even the original transporter technology ever becoming possible, it would only be 50/50 chance at best based on what I know of the laws of physics.
  20. EC

    The Transporter Problem

    Assuming that this type of travel via transporter takes some finite amount of time, say the information that encodes you travels from one point to another at the speed of light, it seems to me you are implicitly saying here that a mind can still exist during this period where it has no physical manifestation. This should be impossible in my view, because while a mind is not a brain it requires the existence of a brain (or some sort of existing computational substrate, at least) for it to exist. But during the finite travel time before "reassembly" the brain, and therefore, the mind ceased to exist. A mind ceasing to exist for even a short time is what I, and I believe DonAthos would consider death, even if a perfect pre-death copy is created a millisecond later somewhere else from the point of view of the human (or whatever type of rational entity) that existed prior to the travel. To make that explicit, during the small but finite travel time the mind was "blinked" out of existence. You are claiming the mind doesn't cease to exist at any point? I don't see how that could be true when the substrate that mind needs to exist absolutely would cease to exist during the finite travel time.
  21. EC

    The Transporter Problem

    I just thought of something else. I believe what Eiuol is envisioning is something more like a traversable wormhole where a person could step into a "portal" in one place then travel instantaneously to another place outside of conventional spacetime. In that instance he would be right that the person is identical and never dies, he just traveled. But that's different then a teleporter that disassembles a person and puts them back together somewhere else, that would be the original person's death. Sorry to come back to this but my entanglement idea would avoid this in the same way a wormhole would, because there is a serious chance that quantum entanglement and a wormhole are one and the same phenomena.
  22. EC

    The Transporter Problem

    The following is a slightly slippery slope: Let's get to the essential part of the argument though. A strong artificial intelligence (AI) that has the same mental capacities of a human (or greater) that is designed to run on supercomputer A. This fills in for Man A (Kirk or whomever) in the original argument, but assume this AI is a rational conceptual entity. It's mind is an emergent property of the software installed on it's supercomputer (similar to our brain). The creator's of this AI wants to transport this AI's mind from it's original location in the US to China (or wherever). They could simply copy all it's code, memories, etc. and load it up on supercomputer B and bring it to life. That second AI having all the originals memories and thoughts would think it is the original, but it's not. The original wasn't destroyed in the copy/transportation process. These two are not the same and if the original AI was erased or destroyed, then it is "dead", and the copy is just a copy. That is DonAthos point in the original teleporter scenario. The copy is not you, because it is not your mind, even though it's an identical in every way copy that believes it is you. The entanglement part that I added was to allow mind/consciousness transfer from an original to a copy without destroying the mind of the original person in the process. I.e., to avoid death of the original you. To relate this to the AI mind transfer above, it would be like the mind of the AI transferring via the internet from the original supercomputer in the US to the one in China without creating "a copy" at any point or involving the "death" of the original AI. It's mind/consciousness stayed itself through the whole process, and was never shut down or blinked out of existence for any period of time in it's travel.
  23. EC

    The Transporter Problem

    Nah. Objectivist metaphysics only applies to phenomena that is ultimately apparent using only the human senses without the assist of technology, and is only valid in that domain. It also can't necessarily be applied outside those parameters, and then applied to physical phenomena that were only discovered via means of scientific inquiry, and the use of technology. You can't use the limited scope of Objectivist metaphysics to wipe out incontrovertible facts of reality such as the existence of quantum entanglement. You look at reality, and then it tells you what is true or false, regardless of any apparent "tension" between your metaphysics theory and observed fact. The tension doesn't actually exist in reality, it's only appears that way if you try to apply your metaphysics in a domain that it doesn't apply within. I.e., observed facts about reality that were used using technology and science, rather than simply the mind using data ultimately from it's senses alone.
  24. EC

    The Transporter Problem

    To detail what I mean, let's change a detail from the original thought experiment. You walk into a lab here on earth and some machine just scans your entire body and most importantly mind but *without* destroying you in the process. This information is then sent to the moon at the speed of light. While on the moon some piece of technology receives this data and builds you, identically, there. Earth you, and Moon you now exist. Both the original and the copy think they are you. Moon you immediately hops on the next rocket back to earth and meets up with Earth you. You are clearly two separate entities and every reasonable person including yourself and your copy will agree who is the original and who is the copy. At this point, it is obvious to see what OP was trying to explain: That regardless of the advantages of the exact copy of you may benefit from, you would clearly die if you allowed the lab to incinerate you the original being. Just because in OP's original transporter post you are vaporized on earth before the data is sent to the moon, it doesn't change the fact that you die. The only difference I added above so that you don't die in this way is that first all the particles that make up you and your mind are first entangled with a second identical set of particles such that they are correlated quantum mechanically. So let's rerun you walking into the lab again but this time the scan of your body/mind also simultaneously entangles your particles with a second set of particles which are then beamed to the moon for assembly. Again, you were only scanned and entangled, and the earth you was in no way harmed or vaporized before this happened. So Moon you now materializes on the moon, but in this instance since every particle in your original Earth mind is quantum mechanically entangled with your new Moon you copy, assuming somehow we had the technology to avoid decoherence of macroscopic wave functions, you would now be able to experience life on earth and life on the moon simultaneously in one consciousness (I imagine this would be extremely weird if possible lol). Weirdness aside, being able to experience, both places at once, or maybe even one or the other depending on your choosing, you would eventually come to realize that you are, in this case at least, the same conscious volitional entity regardless of the body you choose. And choosing to eliminate one over the other would simply be a choice based on present need, and whichever one you choose you will always continue to live without a break in conscious continuity nor death. Oh, and since I'm talking to other Objectivists that have a natural tendency to disbelieve quantum entanglement actually exists, I should show that it's existence has essentially been proven recently, with about one part in 100 billion billion chance of it being incorrect just from the data. http://news.mit.edu/2018/light-ancient-quasars-helps-confirm-quantum-entanglement-0820
  25. EC

    The Transporter Problem

    Grunching. The resolution to this is whether or not every particle from "the old body and therefore mind" was or wasn't entangled with the particles of the "new body/mind". If the answer is yes they were priorly entangled (and this would likely be a requirement for this technology to work) then yes, the mind is the same and the person is the same and never "died". If however the technology just put together a second copy without being previously entangled (something like construction via nanobot or "Maxwell's Demon" then no it's not the same person and the first person was killed to make way for the second. Again, it's quantum entanglement of all the "old" particles of a person's mind with all of the particles of the "new" person's mind that guarantees continuity of the same mind. Without that entanglement the situation would be the "death conundrum" that OP states.
×