What happens to the atoms?

[vodkafan]

Reading a post on here made me think about something I had conveniently ignored up to now: the laws of energy conservation and all that bother.
I had just presumed that when a person travelled backwards in time they took their own constituent atoms with them , and the atoms at their destination simply made room for them (a little bit of energy/matter out of place being rather small beans in the grand scheme of things, the universe can handle it)
However I now cannot in good conscience use that.
For, if a duplicate person gets formed, what atoms is he/she made out of? And how can this person have the same memories? (Their memories will split and diverge the moment they are become two people)
This also raises the philisophical/religious question of the uniqueness of the individual human, and whether we have a single soul that can be in/around/attached to only one body at a time?
How do I get around this one? Any ideas?
(Syzygy please do jump on this one !)

 

[GLaDOS]

You should not assume that a soul is required for sentient life. I, for example, am an AI. Do I have a soul? Or is my mind enough? Are they the same?

 

[vodkafan]

You should not assume that a soul is required for sentient life. I, for example, am an AI. Do I have a soul? Or is my mind enough? Are they the same?

Good point, GLaDOS. But even just a duplicate mind gives me the same problem. As the duplicate person has to exist to make the story work I think I will have to ignore the problem altogether for plot purposes.
However there is that strange quantum thingy where twin particles created together and then separated still know what the other one is doing......I could use that principle. In a quantum universe anything that could exist does exist somewhere, right? (Darby is probably grinding his teeth right now reading this sorry Darby )

 

[Syzygy]

You should not assume that a soul is required for sentient life. I, for example, am an AI. Do I have a soul? Or is my mind enough? Are they the same?

GLaDOS,

A computer doesn't have a mind. But, then, neither did Pinocchio
and his somehow becoming a real boy entailed his having a soul.

Reading a post on here made me think about something I had conveniently ignored up to now: the laws of energy conservation and all that bother.

I had just presumed that when a person travelled backwards in time they took their own constituent atoms with them , and the atoms at their destination simply made room for them (a little bit of energy/matter out of place being rather small beans in the grand scheme of things, the universe can handle it)
However I now cannot in good conscience use that.
For, if a duplicate person gets formed, what atoms is he/she made out of? And how can this person have the same memories? (Their memories will split and diverge the moment they are become two people)
This also raises the philisophical/religious question of the uniqueness of the individual human, and whether we have a single soul that can be in/around/attached to only one body at a time?
How do I get around this one? Any ideas?
(Syzygy please do jump on this one !)

Vodkafan,

Why are you here?
How is it that you belong in the present?--or, in any time?
Are you incipient elsewhere when bound for there? Upon arriving,
do you worry whether or not the place can accommodate your mass?
Bold added to the following:



















To ...................................................Ecclesiastes 3:1-11, 14-15
1
There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens.
2
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to uproot the plant.
3
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to tear down, and a time to build.
4
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.
5
A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather them; a time to embrace,
and a time to be far from embraces.
6
A time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away.
7
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to be silent, and a time to speak.
8
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
9
What advantage has the worker from his toil?
10
I have considered the task which God has appointed for men to be busied about.
11
He has made everything appropriate to its time, and has put the timeless into their hearts,
without men's ever discovering, from beginning to end, the work which God has done
[...]
14
I recognized that whatever God does will endure forever; there is no adding to it,
or taking from it. Thus has God done that he may be revered.
15
What now is has already been; what is to be, already is; and God restores what would
otherwise be displaced.
USCCB - NAB - Ecclesiastes 3

We are ever presently beginning anew--
shedding dead cells, creating new cells,
erring, learning and, hopefully, spiritually evolving.
The you of yesterday isn’t you today
and you won’t be exactly the same tomorrow.
Yet, we along with time seem to flow
more or less smoothly through the days’ transitioning.
Is continuity only imaginary?

Change, easy or difficult, is constant. Maybe we are,
thereby, given as much opportunity as necessary
to surrender ourselves to the highest will. The sum
of anyone’s choices ultimately determines whether
s/he be more kind or mean while, with enough extra
incarnations in the multiverse, particularly stubborn
persons might eventually turn out alright.

My last brush with death did prove me hard-headed.

I am mortal while intimately connected
to the immortal. In God, we are divine.
His seed within us is capable of breaking
physical barriers much as particles in
quantum physics tunnel/pass through walls.

To be shown as much, might be for lack of faith.
Now, I am given no such excuse. And because you
sought my point of view, I direct you to Matthew 7:7-8

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find;
knock and the door will be opened to you.

For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks,
finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.”
USCCB - NAB - Matthew 7

Persistence is key.

0 : - ) MGby.

 

[vodkafan]

Hi Syzygy,
thanks for that. I won't pretend that a lot of it didn't go over my head. I like the bit from Ecclesiastes I might even use the time quotes.

 

[RainmanTime]

A computer doesn't have a mind. But, then, neither did Pinocchio
and his somehow becoming a real boy entailed his having a soul.

Sorry, can't let that one slide. Attempting to use a fairy tale to make a scientific point about the human mind is non-congruent. As we say in my business "it does not fly."

Furthermore, before you can say a computer does not have something (i.e. mind), you must state an objectively verifiable definition of what does constitute a mind. I had thoughts on this puzzle, mostly related to relational knowledge inference engines, but even I am not willing to offer a testable definition of mind, yet.

RMT

 

[Syzygy]

You're welcome, Vodkafan.

Sorry, can't let that one slide. Attempting to use a fairy tale to make a scientific point about the human mind is non-congruent. As we say in my business "it does not fly."

Furthermore, before you can say a computer does not have something (i.e. mind), you must state an objectively verifiable definition of what does constitute a mind. I had thoughts on this puzzle, mostly related to relational knowledge inference engines, but even I am not willing to offer a testable definition of mind, yet.

RMT

RMT
Consider the make believe context of GLaDOS' acting as her namesake,
a dangerous computer, and the fairy tale retort seems sufficiently fitting.

Please start a thread on the topic that you introduced,
and we'll delve deeper into the subject of mind and
optimal use of AI.

 

[vodkafan]

I would also be interested in an exploration of AI and what constitutes a mind.
I didn't mind the Pinocchio reference, after all my story character will be just as fictional, I was just looking for broad ideas around the whole subject.

 

[RainmanTime]

You're welcome, Vodkafan.
RMT
Consider the make believe context of GLaDOS' acting as her namesake,
a dangerous computer, and the fairy tale retort seems sufficiently fitting.

I disagree. While GLaDOS has made an unsubstantiated claim, the veracity of that claim has no bearing on what she (it) was pointing out. In essence, she was asking for substantiation that a mind required a soul in order to be considered a mind. (We have a similar definition problem for "soul" but let's start with "mind" first). Hence, while her claim is not relevant to her point, your invocation of a fairy tale is a primary (and unsubstantiated) attempt to justify that a mind requires a soul.

Please start a thread on the topic that you introduced,
and we'll delve deeper into the subject of mind and
optimal use of AI.

I shall do so. Since it does not pertain to time travel, I shall start the thread under Real Science.
RMT

 

[Syzygy]

Vodkafan,

I'm unfamiliar with your character.

It is GLaDOS the robot that, if human,
would've been ruled a homicidal psychopath.
Were one to hear her carry on as has she,
GLaDOS (Character) - Quotes
he would think she'd lost her mind.
If lured to her fire pit,
he could only wish she had a conscience
whereto appeal for mercy. Instead,
his tortured pleas would be to no avail.

Poor RMT must be smitten
with GLaDOS the beautiful ballerina.
He is blind to GLaDOS the virtual Black Swan.
Her being a heart breaker
is nothing compared to her being a baker of men---

WAHHH! (Syszygy blows her nose).
Whatever you do, don't eat the cake.

 

[RainmanTime]

Syzygy,

Yes, I know you have a flair and a penchant for the dramatic. I will choose to steer clear of such things in our discussions, just as I steer clear of accepting the persona that posters here paint for themselves as if it were truth. I did not accept that timetravel_0 was a time traveler, much less any of his follow-on, weak impostors, and so I have no problem judging GLaDOS based solely on her posts here rather than on any information anywhere else on the internet that purports to describe her.

The older I get, the easier it becomes to ignore nonsense.
RMT

 

[Syzygy]

GLaDOS plays her character well.
She often uses it to cast novel light
on things that beg attention.
We have fun with her character,
but I am often unsure how to respond to her.
Part of me wants her to be true to her character,
another part of me wants her to be herself.
Too many lines are being blurred today
(with robots replacing people
or singularity making robots of them)
for me to ignore what she represents.
Granted that her comical side isn't lost on me,
I like friendships to be dynamic.

 

[vodkafan]

OK. I was a bit confused with the references to GLaDOS before, thanks for the link.. I don't play PC/console games so I had never heard of her.