Go back  

response & another example

October 12 2010 at 1:43 AM
Robert Ettinger  (Login R_Ettinger)
Veteran Member

Response to State descriptions

Refer to below.

I don't want to display too much exasperation, but what Luke says is just word play and false analogies.

He says the lack of interaction between a paper description and a real hydrogen atom proves nothing about their essential natures. Blowing smoke. His previous challenge was to cite something a paper description could not do that a real atom could do, and I pointed out one of the obvious examples, that a real atom can combine with another real atom to produce a hydrogen molecule. He then says that in some circumstances one real hydrogen atom cannot interact with another. Obvious false analogy and irrelevant.

Then he talks about "creating an interface" between computer states and "a physical phenomenon that describes a hydrogen atom," the latter meaning, I think, a hydrogen atom. Again, just vacuous shuffling of words and change of subject. The subject is a paper description vs. physical reality.

Here's another example of what a real hydrogen atom not only can do, but always does, and that the paper description never does and cannot do, viz., distort the local and distant gravitational fields in the appropriate way.

Every physical object, including a force field, affects all the other objects in the universe by modifying the gravitational fields everywhere. According to some quantum theorists, this may involve quantum entanglement and results are instantaneous, but in any case the modification of gravitational fields always accompanies creation or movement of physical objects. The piece of paper will also modify fields, but not in the same way.

Robert Ettinger
Response to Another response to Luke
[Ettinger] Recall again what the computer does. It has an initial state description in store, along with a program. It then calculates subsequent state descriptions. These cannot interact with a real hydrogen atom.

[Parrish] The reason the state descriptions cannot in and of themselves interact with hydrogen atoms has to do with a lack of interfacing mechanisms between the two, and proves nothing about their essential natures (i.e. what they describe). You point to the lack of spacial interface as if it were significant proof of your point, but it isn't. A hydrogen atom lacks a spacial interface to another hydrogen atom which is at the center of a black hole, in another spacial universe, at a point back in time from itself, etc.
[Luke]As far as we can tell, the lack of a spacial interface between our hypothesized series of successive computed information states which describe a hydrogen atom, and a physical phenomenon that describes a hydrogen atom, is an engineering problem -- not an epistemic one. Once such an interface is created, the simulated hydrogen atom (provided it is running at the same rate as the real one, and is otherwise indistinguishable for all necessary purposes) should combine with it just fine. Why shouldn't it?

 Respond to this message   
Find more forums on Science and TechnologyCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement