Salutatio Mark!
25-Dec-97, Mark Bloss wrote to Richard Meic
          Subject: Uncertainty?
 RM>> David... a photon was created in one place and destroyed in
 RM>> another, yes?  My skepticism comes from the "destroying" aspect
 RM>> of the original photon.  All that was done was a duplication (or
 RM>> more accurately "copying") of a photon.  The original was not
 RM>> "teleported", but merely copied.  There is a difference, see?  If
 RM>> man "A" was said to have been "teleported", what really happened?
 RM>>  Man "B" is created (a very accurate copy) at position "C" and
 RM>> man "A" is then destroyed at position "D",... right?  Man "B" can
 RM>> be called man "A", fore - in all intents and purposes - man "B"
 RM>> has all man "A"'s memories, feelings, physical appearance, etc...
 RM>> but is man "B" :*REALLY*: man "A"?  No, man "A" died... he was
 RM>> killed, murdered in the "so called" teleportation.
 MB> I agree here.
Of course you do, Mark... it is logical.  ;)
 RM>> So, is teleportation possible?  No.
 MB> I disagree here, because...
 RM>> Now, add this to the uncertainty that an :*EXACT*: copy of
 RM>> something can be done.  Can one REALLY make an :*EXACT*: copy of
 RM>> anything?  No, fore there _are_ differences, however subtle.
 MB> There is no difference between man "A" and man "B" at ALL, not
 MB> even subtle ones.  
     
Based on the uncertainty principle there can NEVER be an EXACT copy of 
anything, Mark.  Uncertainty is a valid scientific principle.  How can 
one create an exact particle when one can never know the original 
completely?  It cannot be done.
 MB> If any difference makes no difference, then
 MB> there is no difference at all.  ;)
                               
Interesting, you create a false "if" and draw a conclusion that suits 
you from that "if".  ANY difference is enough of a difference to 
conclude that a copy is not EXACTLY like the original.  Heheheh... neat 
huh?
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@spots.ab.ca)
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro 
---------------