Simple Paradox question

This should be an easy question for you guys. I find myself in a rather
bizarre, but interesting debate that has now involved some simple
physics. I haven't taken a physics class in over 30 years and I just
want to make sure that I am on the right path and not making a fool of
myself.In a nutshell, the scenario is:

A person is split into two people (a hypothetical adult mitosis
machine). Original splits into 2 "splones". We assume that each splone
has a consciousness.

Question: Would you ever agree to be split? I say no because they would
not get your POV. You would die and your splones would continue with
their own POV. (Others maintain the opposite view.)
Reason: because it would be a paradox to have two beings with one POV.
It would mean sharing consciousness/perceptions. Action-at-a-distance.
Nonlocality. Is POV time invariant? Can we separate POV from
consciousness?

If Original POV=Splone1 POV, and original POV=Splone2 POV, then Splone1
POV=Splone2POV
Questions:
Is my analysis and conclusion correct? Any mistakes?
Am I using the correct terminology? If not, can you recommend better
terms.

Anyway, any help you can give this old geezer would be greatly
appreciated
DocDan

Dear docdan:

"docdan" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:Xns97015D6C9D0Etibbycatcomcastnet@216.196.109 .144...

Just use "duplicate". Reminds me of the movie with Michael
Keaton...


Not enough detail to answer. Is each duplicate's recollection
continuous, excluding the duplicating process?


Pauli exclusion does not apply to this. A duplicate must be
made, or must share, new matter brought in. Such new matter
"dissolves" your argument.


Yes. It is another word for "frame", and any inertial object has
a frame. Muons have no consciousness (Are you sure, have you met
*all* the muons?), yet they experience things from the
perspective of their speed.

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in
news:wXJ9f.99$bo.24@fed1read01:



Thanks David.
We used the "mitosis" idea to allow for up to 50% of the originals
matter to be passed on to each splone to allow for a possible physical
link conduit from original to splone. But, that's not really germane to
this discussion.
Just a couple more clarifications if you don't mind:
I'm still wondering if my choice of POV is the appropriate term. If I
was asked to be terminated and continue into another body with the same
(actually just duplicate)consciousness but with my POV, would I accept,
because I would feel continued? Would I decline to allow myself to be
terminated and continue into another body that, even though it had my
duplicate consciousness, it did not have my POV?
If that is true, then since both splones would have the same (the
original's) POV at the same time, would that be a paradox. I guess
another way to state it would be: perhaps your consciousness can be
dulicated, but your POV can not be (it would mean seeing thru eachothers
eyes, no?)
If you don't mind, here is another question (from the same debate) that
is a little physics but also a little physiology: I maintain that the
human brain over time may lose some of the original fundamental
particles that it originated with (through some cells dying and being
resorbed), but certainly not most or all of the particles. The
opposition maintains that becuase the cells are regenerated over time
that means that new fundamental particles are brought in from from
outside the body.Who's correct? One last one: In regenerating cells, are
the "atoms" altered or transformed in any way.
Answers to any of the above is appreciated.

docdan wrote:

That would depend on a lot of personal factors which touch more on
ethics, morality, psychology, thelogy, and other 'humanities.'


Your choice.


<skip the gratuitous neologisms - let us call them the original and the
duplicate as David suggested>


The POV (presumably "point of view"?) diverges the instant the
duplicate is formed. It is in a different physical place (Pauli's
exclusion principle applies), so it will have different perceptions,
which will lead it to different information, different interpretations,
and different conclusions.


For how long?

No matter how identical the original and the duplicates are at first,
their experiences after their creation/activation will be different,
leading to gradually diverging points of view. Their knowledge bases
will diverge, their acquired skills will diverge, their attitudes and
preferences will diverge. They will be different people, and as time
goes on, they differences will become apparent even to others.

There is a lot of ethical hand-wringing going on lately about
'cloning.' Genetically identical twins have been around as long as
life has reproduced. A clone of me would not be me, but would be a
separate person. Clones have the same human rights as anyone else.
The ethical problem is not in the clone or the process of cloning, but
in the purpose of cloning. As always the key difference between 'good'
and 'evil' is the motive.

The battle-cry for the civil rights movement of the 21st century may be
"Clones are human, too!"

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

> Question: Would you ever agree to be split?

Not enough information provided. It would depend on what the potential risks
and benefits would be. You never described those. You never described the
situation clearly enough for one to even make a guess.


Why would that be a show stopper?


What would be the cause of death? How would death and POV be related?


I see no paradox. Would it be a paradox to have two beings with the same
favorite color? Bank account? Birthday?


What the hell does that mean? And why would it be a problem?


Ummmm..... action at a what? What are you on about now?


What about it? Idiot...


Yes of course. POV can vary a great deal. Why do you ask? What are you
getting at?


Sure. Why not? Of course, you have not defined the terms "POV" and
"consciousness", but don't let that stop you.


Nope. It is mindless drivel. Worse that Don1 even. Sort of like Sarfatti
sniffing nail polish after undergoing a lobotomy.


It is not even wrong.


You mean "splones"? Good grief you are an idiot!


Idiot...

Thank you Tom,

Lot's of good info there and it's much appreciated. But I would like a
little more clarification on one point:

ethics, morality...etc. aside:

You and a duplicate. Only 2 criteria: you want to live (to feel carried
on/to feel you had a future) AND be rich. Would you choose to be
terminated if your duplicate was assured of getting a million dollars.I
say no, because even though the duplicate may have your duplicate body,
consciousness, past memories etc., the original "you" would not feel
continued on into the duplicate. This is strictly from the point of view
of the original you.The duplicate would think that he was the original,
because he inherited the original's memories. The duplicate would appear
to be the original to every one, except to the original. In my opinion,
one proof of that is if you can have one duplicate, you can have many
duplicates, and you can't have a vested interest (a continuum/feeling of
a future etc.) in more than one entity at the same time. I'm saying that
the duplicate may have "a" point of view, but he can not have "your"
(the original's) POV.(I say it as: your consciousness may pass into a
duplicate, but your POV could not).Is all of this true? And if so, is
there a better way to put it in "physics" terminology (I just have a lay
persons grasp of physics). Thanks again.

My retort would normally be to call you an idiot, but you would be
justified in considering this to be a compliment. Your IQ obviously falls
far short of the "Idiot" classification. Oh, and your "splone" is a moron.

"odin" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in
news:-[Only registered users see links. ]:

Normally my retort would be to call you an idiot as well, but you would be justified
in considering that to be a compliment. Your IQ obviosly falls far short of the
"idiot" classification. And, your splone is a moron.

"odin" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in
news:-[Only registered users see links. ]:

TibbyCat wrote:

In other words, would I volunteer to die to make someone else rich? Is
*that* what you are asking?


I believe that I have already pointed that out.

I quote my earlier post:
"The POV (presumably "point of view"?) diverges the instant the
duplicate is formed."


I am not sure exactly *what* 'consciousness' is. Neither is anyone
else. I have not yet seen two people who can even agree on a common
definition for it.


This discussion of 'consciousness' is more metaphysics than physics.
Physics deals in phenomena that can be *independently* tested and
reproducibly measured. Statement regarding physical phenomena can (in
principle at least) be empirically tested and verified or disproven.
Consciousness does not fall into this domain, and never will.

The scientific method is a very powerful tool (the best we have) for
testing the truth of statements about the observable universe, but it
has its limits.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

> And, your splone is a moron.

Yeah? And your splone wears army boots...