Posted by Jason on August 05, 1998 at 18:25:42:
In Reply to: Previous thread posted by rpcman on August 05, 1998 at 17:46:00:
You wrote:
It is my understanding through reading reviews and critiques that the premise is that computers will be able to store vast amounts of information including all the thoughts of people. Now this may be well and fine and give some sort of 'immortality' to those living at the time this feat is achieved, but how is it going to resurrect me or someone who is has already been dead for dozens, hundreds, millions, etc. of years?
Incredible as it may sound, Tipler argues that not only will every human be resurrected (and here's the answer to your question...), but every human whose existence would have been logically possible will be resurrected. Since humans are finite state machines (maybe I should say 'assuming' since there are detractors of my favorite theory here :-), there is only a finite number of logically possible human beings.
This introduces some interesting identity problems. First I have to be willing to accept that the emulation really is me. I'm a little uncomfortable with that but I believe the argument (i.e. if the emulation of a person is perfect then the emulation is the person).
Here is another: every state I have taken on will be emulated. That means the person I have been at each (quantum) instant of my entire life will exist at the same time at the 'end time'. Which is me?! I would guess the state I was in just before I died is the one that's me. How does the Omega Point keep me from dying again? Actually, I like this idea. It'd be one hell of an experience being able to have conversions with all the me's that I've ever been! Maybe the ULTIMATE ME will be when all those ME's merge into one super-ME!
Here's the real doozy (IMO): the argument implies that the Omega Point could create two or more instances of "me" at the same time! Which one is the real me?! This is the problem that really worries me.
I must say that I love Tipler's book and I am compelled by many of his arguments (including the emulation arguments). I'm just pointing out some of the fascinating (I think) problems I see with it.