🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris Wagner wrote:
> 
> Chris Muffett wrote:
> >     Yep, I can grasp this concept of "guessing" the particles
> > attributes, but do you think that the reconstructed object (with
> > approximated particles) would be sufficiently identical to the original?
> > Perhaps there is a quantum equivalent of the "Butterfly Effect" causing
> > the original and the copy to gradually diverge in physical appearances.
> > If I transported myself, would I still be 'me'?
> 
> Look at it this way:  All the particles in your body can be known
> to x% certainty.  The transporter rips you apart and puts everything
> back together with all the particles to x% certainty.  The uncertainty
> of particles is part and parcel of their physical properties.  Two
> particles with x% uncertainty *are* the same.  "Identicle"

    I've got a major philosophical problem with the assumption you have
made. I believe that all particles do have a precise position and
momentum, and that the act of measurement can never exactly determine
these properties. If we observe a particle we can know it's properties
with x% uncertainty, and if we replicate this particle there will still
be a x% uncertainty between the new and old particles. Thus we have
changed the properties of the particle.

    In essence I believe, rightly or wrongly, that all particles do have
exact properties, although we can never experimentally determine all of
them with complete accuracy. In my world, two particles with x%
uncertainty are not the same.


	Regards,
	 Chris.