Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site 3comvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm From: michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Matter transmission, etc. Message-ID: <263@3comvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 14:49:55 EST Article-I.D.: 3comvax.263 Posted: Fri Nov 1 14:49:55 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 06:33:24 EST References: <3998@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <1825@umcp-cs.UUCP> <87@mit-eddie.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA Lines: 79 [Please, oh please, eat me, Brer Line Eater Monster!] > In article <1825@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > >In article <3998@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Slocum.CSCDA@HI-MULTICS.ARPA writes: > > > >>Let's not forget the Uncertainty Principle in the context of matter > >>recording/ duplication. A simple way of stating this is the following: > >> "When dealing with sub-atomic particles (electrons, etc.), the more > >>accurately the velocity of said particle is known, the less accurately > >>its position is known, and visa versa". > > > >>So, if you know the position of an electron to infinite precision, you > >>know nothing about its velocity. This kind of screws up the copying > >>process. I would hope that the copier was awfully precise. > > > >Well, actually, since the person himself constitutes an observing system, > >it's only necessary to be as percise in observation as the human body is of > >itself. My guess is that this is going to be (by most standards) quite > >sloppy, especially as the need for real precision is going to be > >concentrated in relatively small volume. The atom-by-atom structure of > >bone, for instance, is likely to be of little importance compared to its > >gross structure. There are lots of fluid areas where we surely do not care > >where the water molecules are (as long as we have them at the right > >temperature-- a VERY low precision measure of energy). So from that point > >of view, my estimate is that the problem is not that difficult. The chief > >problem is simply acquiring the information without destroying it too soon, > >and then finding a place to put it all. > > > >Charley Wingate > > This is pure nonsense. So what if the atom-by-atom structure of bone is > or is not reporduced. In fact, you could still achieve human matter > transmision without sending bone at all. It is the thoughts and ideas, > contained in the mind, which is important and this is the part that CAN > NOT be measured with sufficient accuracy. Period. No if's and's or > but's (sorry for the cliche). (sigh, let me repeat myself) There is an > absoulte, lower limit on the accuracy with which one can measure both > the position and momentium of any particle (an electron). Specifically, > the uncertainty (product of uncertainty of position and uncertainty of > momentum) can be no less than h (Planc's constant). One can not hope to > reproduce the state of a human brain since doing so would require > reporducing electric impulses and energy states of atoms/molucules. It > is not enough to know that "there are a few electrons flying around." > You must also know where they are and where thay are going. > > Jeff Siegal - MIT EECS For an area of science where we are still very ignorant -- we still have very little knowledge of how thoughts and memories are organized in the brain -- you talk awfully certain. It seems quite unlikely to me that thoughts are placed at the level where quantum uncertainty is an overriding factor -- for the simple reason that such would make thoughts and memories too unreliable to be useful. Why build a brain like that? It seems much more probable that, however it is organized, the information *can* be reliably read, written, and stored. If the living brain can do it, eventually I suspect we'll also learn how. Once the thought and memory structure is extracted and transmitted, creation of the destination brain doesn't need to involve control of the exact positions and energies of every electron -- which is, of course, impossible -- but "merely" must ensure that analogues of the original thoughts and memories are circulating in the brain. It is no more forbidden by the uncertainty principle for us to do this with a brain than it is for a computer. Computers are also subject, in the small scale, to the uncertainty principle, yet we *do* manage to reliably transfer information and programs between them, don't we? -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Fool. The reason why the seven stars are no more than seven is a pretty reason. Lear. Because they are not eight? Fool. Yes, indeed. Thou wouldst make a good fool. William Shakespeare, *King Lear*, Act I, Scene 5