X-Message-Number: 3059
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 23:08:28 -0400
From: "Bruce Zimov" <>
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS perspective
 
Robert Ettinger writes:
 
>There are many reasons for this long term optimism, but the simplest bottom
>line is that I believe the universe is strictly deterministic. This means
>that no information is ever lost, and with enough time, wealth, and incentive
>any previous structure can be repaired or rebuilt.
 
>Why do I think strict determinism governs the world? Simply because--as far
>as I can see--there is no alternative. As far as I know, the only alternative
>ever even PROPOSED is that of partial "randomness," as in the usual
>interpretation of quantum mechanics. But randomness in the objective
>sense--partial or otherwise--seems to me a meaningless term. At any rate, I
>have never read or heard a definition or explanation of objective randomness
>that was coherent or intelligible, let alone persuasive.
 
I believe there are better reasons for being a long-term optimist than
having to commit to strict determinism.  The progress curve in computer
science and neuro-science is a better reason for hope.  Strict determinism 
does NOT mean that no information is ever lost.  Irreversibility and 
information loss in a strictly deterministic universe is easy to show.  
Imagine an effect that can come from two causes.  If either cause obtains, 
you get the effect.  This is strictly deterministic, but irreversibly 
degenerate.  There is no way from having the result to know which cause 
is the proper cause to reconstruct during restoration.
 
In addition, it is a logical fallacy to conclude anything about determinism
due to an incomplete definition of randomness.  
 
A more important philosophical problem is that of identity.  Since restoration
by copying does not preserve numerical identity, restoration by replacement
is the only alternative.  Indeed, our nutritional replacement shows this
to be a viable strategy, but ischemic damage breaches the functional level.  
Unfortunately, Derek Parfit in REASONS AND PERSONS c.1984 showed that 
restoration by replacement suffers from the same defect as restoration by 
copying:
 
Parfit p.474-475: 
                
                "In Case One, the surgeon performs a hundred operations. 
                In each of these, he removes a hundredth part of my brain,
                and inserts a replica of this part.  In Case Two, the
                surgeon follows a different procedure.  He first removes
                all of the parts of my brain, and then inserts all of their
                replicas....In both of my cases, there will later be a 
                person whose brain will be exactly like my present brain,
                except for the defects....Can this be the difference between 
                life and death? Can my fate depend on this difference in the 
                ordering of removals and insertions?  Can it be so important, 
                for my survival, whether the new parts are, for a time, 
                joined to the old parts?"

Bruce Zimov


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3059