The View Point Room Argument
This argument is a specialized variation of the common "copy is not the original" argument, this variation illustrates how and why atomically identical clones lack sufficient information to facilitate a subjective transference, irrespective of that clones environment or spacetime location.
The argument:
Imagine two atomically identical, simple and non-distinct rooms. A human clone exists in suspended animation in each room and the clones share the exact atomic structure of the other. These rooms are shielded in such a way where no external (to the room) influences can affect anything within. For all intents and purposes the two rooms+clones only differ in their spacial locations. Now imagine the two clones wake up at the exact same time and begin to explore their environment. As described thus far it is understandable if one were to reason that:
1) The two rooms and clones will evolve in exactly the same way over any length of time.
2) The two clones will share the same self and awareness.
However, modern physics tells us the reasoning about (1) is clearly wrong. The two rooms+clones will instantly begin to diverge, first in minuscule ways, yet these small changes compound on themselves, so that given sufficient time the divergence becomes ever more significant.
Also, if the two clones shared the same self and awareness in truth, then a change in one MUST have at least some influence on the other. If not, then clearly they cannot share anything of substance, since sharing by any definition involves one or more transactions/interactions. The problem is that no matter how we influence clone #1, clone #2 will continue to evolve both subjectively and objectively independently of clone #1. Thus (2) is also clearly wrong and any conception of a connection/relation must be regarded as illusionary.
Something very different occurs if we instead simulate the above scenario on a classical Turning Machine. In this scenario both rooms+clones will evolve in exactly the same way, no matter how long the program runs or how many rooms+clones we simulate. This difference becomes even more pronounced, after close inspection we would find that the non-simulated rooms+clones diverge away from the simulated rooms by a statistically equivalent trajectory over any finite length of time.
The reason for the difference in behavior is clear, the simulations emulate only to an "atomic resolution" and the Turning Machines computational substrate (hardware) is designed to eliminate all "environmental noise", allowing for predictable calculations to occur. While the non-simulated rooms+clones are running "natively" on the substrate of physics itself (at this level of reality anyway).
What are we to take away from the above? I suspect that many will naturally want to return to the traditional arguments:
a) Consciousness does not exist, it is an illusion.
b) Consciousness exists as a pattern, but is not confined to a particular physical substrate.
The problem for these traditional views is that neither can survive unchanged in light of this argument.
The argument presented here shows that if (a) is to be taken seriously then it must apply equally to all classical objects (atomic resolution patterns). For it is clear that if two atomically identical rooms+clones evolve independently then it is illogical to claim both clones share the same consciousness, illusionary or otherwise.
The second argument (b) has more serious problems to contend with. It is not clear at all how one can, even in theory, reconcile the argument in light of the fact that two atomically identical minds always diverge independent of space, time or matter.
It seems that at best, both arguments reduce to saying: These clones have similar mind patterns and each possesses an illusion of consciousness.
I propose a middle path:
c) Mind is a pattern/process; however, awareness of mind is always singular, confined to a particular thing (pattern/process). It's singular nature is defined by the same physical process by which all things emerge into classical reality.
In quantum physics they call this process: Quantum Decoherence, or in the theory of Quantum Darwinism the e-selection of “pointer states”. No matter what we call this process it should be clear that similarity is insufficient to claim a successful transference. Nature it seems has a method for counting and keeping track of things (awareness of mind included). How exactly this process works is not exactly clear, but perhaps something like quantum entanglement plays the unifying role (binding problem) and uncertainty the divergence role.
Edited by Quantum-Entangled Self, 16 January 2011 - 07:26 AM.
