Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

It is not possible for one thing to be numerically identical to two different things.

Bill Stoddard

Numerical identity is a linguistic term with no basis in reality. Its very definition is so vague as to be useless when actually identifying objects. What's the real, as opposed to ideal, definition of identity? Online dictionaries say that if things are 'identical', that means they're equivalent.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Numerical identity is a linguistic term with no basis in reality. Its very definition is so vague as to be useless when actually identifying objects. What's the real, as opposed to ideal, definition of identity? Online dictionaries say that if things are 'identical', that means they're equivalent.

So when I go to a game session, and take my copy of GURPS Powers, and two or three other people have copies of GURPS Powers, and one of us asks, "Is that my copy of GURPS Powers?" you believe that that question is meaningless?

Bill Stoddard

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

So when I go to a game session, and take my copy of GURPS Powers, and two or three other people have copies of GURPS Powers, and one of us asks, "Is that my copy of GURPS Powers?" you believe that that question is meaningless?

Bill Stoddard

If the copies are indistinguishable in any meaningful way, yes. For instance, the textbooks in school are distingishable by the name on one of the last pages, but straight rulers of the same model are not, so my deskmate and I usually took home whichever one was nearest. Likewise with ethernet cables among my friends, or with mice of the same model (a case with my ex back in the days), or the set identical spoons in my kitchen.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Molokh

If the copies are indistinguishable in any meaningful way, yes. For instance, the textbooks in school are distingishable by the name on one of the last pages, but straight rulers of the same model are not, so my deskmate and I usually took home whichever one was nearest. Likewise with ethernet cables among my friends, or with mice of the same model (a case with my ex back in the days), or the set identical spoons in my kitchen.

(a) Let us stipulate that the copies are not distinguishable at any level of resolution accessible to the players. Nonetheless, they are not all the same copy; if they were, there would have been only one book in the room, not, say, four. Since there were multiple copies, let us assign index numbers to them: GP1, GP2, GP3, GP4. These do not represent distinctive physical attributes; they are assigned arbitrarily to copies that are in distinct locations. Now, as time passes, each copy follows a space-time trajectory through the room. Those space-time trajectories are unique, and at no time do GPi and GPj have the same space-time coordinates. So "Is this my copy?" translates perfectly straightforwardly to "Is this copy on the same space-time trajectory as the copy that was occupying my briefcase when we first sat down to play?" For macroscopic objects, space-time trajectories are meaningfully definable and unique.

(b) From the proposition that "these cables are all equivalent and interchangeable" it does not follow that "it's not a problem if you take the cable that is connecting two components that I am using, and use it to connect two components that you intend to use, without telling me and getting my permission."

(c) The Bill Stoddard who is an organic being, and the hypothetical Bill Stoddard who is a program being run on a highly sophisticated computer, are certainly distinguishable; in fact it's quite easy to do so. Therefore by your own criterion they cannot be identical to each other. The only reason that you consider them identical is that they have a historical continuity with each other . . . and that historical continuity is precisely a matter of space-time trajectory, which you seem not to recognize as valid or meaningful. So your own view of the matter seems to be inconsistent.

Bill Stoddard

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Also identity is not necessarily singular. It is possible that a is identical to b and to c.

Only in limited ways, not entirely. For example three otherwise identical physical objects cannot also occupy the same space at the same time, so they are different WRT location in space/time. And as we are talking about multiple ghosts existing on different pieces of hardware they will at least be different in this regard.

And how do you deal with the legal side ? If you argue that ghosts A, B and C are identical, will you punish B and C if A commits a crime and disappears ? If A earns money, do you argue that B and C own it too ? If A marries, is the spouse married to B and C as well regardless of the spouse´s wishes ?

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by Molokh

If the copies are indistinguishable in any meaningful way, yes. For instance, the textbooks in school are distingishable by the name on one of the last pages, but straight rulers of the same model are not, so my deskmate and I usually took home whichever one was nearest.

Would "this was a gift from my girlfriend" be meaningful in your opinion ?

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by whswhs

(a) Let us stipulate that the copies are not distinguishable at any level of resolution accessible to the players.

IMO that´s impossible. They always occupy different locations, even if only by an inch. And one can track them through space/time.

In addition, IMO "accessible to the players" is problematic. Let´s say one copy (not mine) is highly radioactive. I cannot notice this without instruments I do not have, so right now I cannot distinguish. I do not even know about this difference. Nevertheless I would see a problem if another player would replace his radioactive copy with my non-radioactive one, and leave me with his radioactive one.

And at the microscopic level the copies are always distinguishable. Which reminds me: can ghosts be truly identical at the quantum level ?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

(a) Let us stipulate that the copies are not distinguishable at any level of resolution accessible to the players. Nonetheless, they are not all the same copy; if they were, there would have been only one book in the room, not, say, four. Since there were multiple copies, let us assign index numbers to them: GP1, GP2, GP3, GP4. These do not represent distinctive physical attributes; they are assigned arbitrarily to copies that are in distinct locations. Now, as time passes, each copy follows a space-time trajectory through the room. Those space-time trajectories are unique, and at no time do GPi and GPj have the same space-time coordinates. So "Is this my copy?" translates perfectly straightforwardly to "Is this copy on the same space-time trajectory as the copy that was occupying my briefcase when we first sat down to play?" For macroscopic objects, space-time trajectories are meaningfully definable and unique.

(b) From the proposition that "these cables are all equivalent and interchangeable" it does not follow that "it's not a problem if you take the cable that is connecting two components that I am using, and use it to connect two components that you intend to use, without telling me and getting my permission."

(1) You yourself admitted that they're arbitrary. (2) So if teleportation (or worse yet, timeports) is ever made possible, items start losing their identities due to 'porting?

Originally Posted by whswhs

(c) The Bill Stoddard who is an organic being, and the hypothetical Bill Stoddard who is a program being run on a highly sophisticated computer, are certainly distinguishable; in fact it's quite easy to do so. Therefore by your own criterion they cannot be identical to each other. The only reason that you consider them identical is that they have a historical continuity with each other . . . and that historical continuity is precisely a matter of space-time trajectory, which you seem not to recognize as valid or meaningful. So your own view of the matter seems to be inconsistent.

Bill Stoddard

Since human identity is usually defined through personality (because apparently having one's body mangled does not cause a change of identity), it is within the limits of acceptable deviation for purposes of identification.

Examine again the examples of other maintenance of identity: the city that ceased to exist in all senses, then was built anew and is still Moscow, the shrine (likewise), and most importantly, the operating system which is copied-and-deleted (moved) between different disks in a redundant array of inexpensive disks. In all these cases the materials changed, but the new entities matched the criteria of identification: the administrative position, the spiritual/religious position, and the informational content.

I do not claim that the entity whswhs-ghost-2010 (or whatever) is fully identical to whswhs-2009, any more than I claim that whswhs-2009 is fully identical to whswhs-2008. But all these entities belong to the set whswhs.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

Only in limited ways, not entirely. For example three otherwise identical physical objects cannot also occupy the same space at the same time, so they are different WRT location in space/time. And as we are talking about multiple ghosts existing on different pieces of hardware they will at least be different in this regard.

And how do you deal with the legal side ? If you argue that ghosts A, B and C are identical, will you punish B and C if A commits a crime and disappears ? If A earns money, do you argue that B and C own it too ? If A marries, is the spouse married to B and C as well regardless of the spouse´s wishes ?

Ah, but by committing a crime, one of them creates a difference for the purposes of needing to be punished. This also applies to current humans:

Back in the day, vicky-2007 was Ler's SO, but vicky-2009 is Lee's SO. Naughty things allowed to vicky-2007 and to vicky-2009 are different. But both are vicky.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

Would "this was a gift from my girlfriend" be meaningful in your opinion ?

If it has meaningful differences from the other one, it is meaningful. Otherwise it's just superstition.