Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh
So you don't see a problem with it letting murderers (or whatever) walk the earth thanks to such a procedure?
|
The murderer is dead if one accepts the worldline model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh
Pays maintenance according to the criteria of the contract. A very literal reading of a very naïve (pre-ghosting style) contract will probably result in a case where paying the maintenance to any one ghost will fulfill the criteria of the contract. But in the age of ghosting, contracts should be written with such criteria as to not break down (e.g. maintenance only paid to the instance with the longest existing uptime as measured by the official clock of the jurisdiction).
|
Why ? Remember, they are all the same person. If Vicky-1 has more rights to the money than Vicky-2 and all later Vickys, how can they be the same ?
And again, with whom is the spouse married ? What happens to property owned by the original ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh
With work and pay, it gets even more heavily into the difference between identification and authorization. Just like vicky-15yo and vicky-16yo are both vickies, but only the latter is authorized to matriculate into a university, so only the one doing work should be authorized to take the money.
|
Agreed. But who decides ? I am the employer and suddenly 500 Vickys show up to work and earn a salary. Which one is the one with whom I have a contract ?
I am the landlord. Which one is the tenant ?
The wordline model has no problems in all those cases. Each new copy is a new person, and destructive uploading is death. The only problem we have is whether we define copying as asexual reproduction and postulate parent-child legal relationships, or whether we treat it like spontaneous generation and postulate no legal relationship at all.