|
OP may I suggest an alternative - try capitalism, it really works great!
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't life just a long string of chemical chain reactions causing other chemical chain reaction causing other chemical chain reaction causing other chain reactions ect..? And death would then be simply the end of a string of these chain reactions that run out of some sort of fuel..?
|
|
|
|
Is 8 days really enough time to vet a potentially nefarious plan? It's not just 8 days. The fix was developed for some time now and the process was open so it already was under scrutiny. But even if it was just 8 days it's still enough. What if a few people DO see something nefarious in it, will they be listened to, or ignored?
No one is forced to download the updated client. That's the fialsafe in Bitcoin in general. |
|
|
|
All of this technical stuff is way over my head, but I'd like to share my ignorant thoughts anyways.
It seems to me that 8 days is not enough time for people to really do their research on the matter. If I were a miner, or the operator of a mining pool, I would want to know EXACTLY what I'm doing before I made any serious changes.
Secondly, even if 8 days is enough time there is something unsettling about this. What you essentially have is a few highly skilled coders in the know. If they can dupe the mining community into something, anything, nefarious it could destroy Bitcoin. Obviously, I'm not saying that they will, but posit this:
Imagine highly skilled feds, or any other criminal organization, infiltrated the upper echelon of Bitcoin coders. They spent long hours making it better and building a reputation for themselves, slowly but surely dominating the entire field of coders. Then, one day, it's time to destroy Bitcoin and they issue some sort of scenario similar to the one we're dealing with now, for the mining community to go to a new blockchain or something, and the mining community takes their word for it, and BAM, Bitcoin is hashed forever.
I understand this is conspiracy theory stuff, but can anyone unsettle my fears about this scenario?
Simple. As long as the process is completely transparent and open there's really nothing anyone could "sneak" past everyone else in order to cause damage. And if you checked the OP, it pretty much doesn't get any more transparent then how they're going about with this fix. I mean you can even read the mailing list how the devs formulated the fix.. |
|
|
|
And if MtGox gets hacked? Or targeted by law?
I think this is the next big thing to watch out for. A wrong move from government or law enforcement, and BOOM there goes the bitcoin price. Wait, which way do you think it's going to go? I'm pretty sure he meant down.  |
|
|
|
|
Well I believe we haven't seen anything yet. When the shit really hits the fan and governments impose capital controls in order to prevent people from bugging out with their wealth then we'll really see this thing take off.
I wished Flexcoin were a lot more transparent about their business though and took a hint about transparency from MtGox's recent actions on the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
I wish you a favorable resolve and your money returned + damages repayed.
|
|
|
|
|
It's voluntary centralization so I don't care. If they screw us over, we are all free to go somewhere else. Until this choice exists I don't really mind their share of the market.
|
|
|
|
I noticed the example in the video is a microtransaction valued around 25 cents. This is a significant distinction from other payment options.
^ This! And I can't wait until more realize it. |
|
|
|
|
If you go and read the draft for their new constitution you'll notice there is a bunch of socialists statist crap in there which doesn't surprise me at all since it was drafted by 30 or something of their by the public selected citizenry. Why would we expect anything smarter of them when it comes to choosing a good money. Idiots should have gone with gold and maybe some bitcoins but they'll just have to pay for their mistakes down the road like all the other nations with a centrally run currency.
|
|
|
|
How strange that I would just finish watching a 50min long talk on morality and then stumble into this thread. Matthew I think you need to see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEoIt has important evidence that explains a lot about the biology of morality and our answers to moral questions. I think it would do you good to know how the process of answering a moral question works before you go on and answer the question. |
|
|
|
If a transporter was proven to exactly replicate the mind as it was, I would use it. My perceived reality has been proven to be stable thus far and I would trust it in this circumstance.
So you would submit yourself to being killed, and allow a replica of yourself which contains the exact memories and brain structure to be created to replace yourself? How can you prove my perception was destroyed and not reincarnated to the replica? How can we deduce which latter event is more probable? Consider the following two scenarios: 1. You step into the transporter room and your body is scanned at the molecular level and you are recreated somewhere else. Only problem is, the machine failed to actually destroy your body at this location. A service technician approaches you and says: "Sir, a minor glitch occurred. If you could come this way we'll manually finish the process..." 2. You step into the transporter room and your body is scanned at the molecular level and you are recreated not once, but three different times in three different locations. Clearly, you, the person who stepped into the transporter room, can't be all three of the newly created individuals. Granted, from their perspective, each of the three are you and fully believes in the success of the transportation process, but logically, at the very most, you are only one of them, and the other two are not. It makes further sense that you are in fact none of them, and are in fact, dead, forever, and not experiencing the world at all. Answer: Pauli exclusion principle in quantum mechanics. |
|
|
|
And I know you said it twice that quantum teleportation exists, but that doesn't tell me anything. I'm asking you if we have the technology to teleport a living organism?
I'll answer that when you tell me if we can do what you proposed with clones. Probably not. I don't know.. I guess I wont get an answer then? With regard to your question, I'm not clear why you're asking it. Not only are you incapable of answering my rhetorical question, but you actually think your question requires an answer. Why do you require me to answer your question? It boggles my mind. Don't you know the answer? Because if we don't have the technology to teleport a living organism you can't possibly know the laws such a machine would be governed by and so I really can't for the life of me understand what possible insight could you gain by examining your fictitious scenario.. It'd be like theorizing how superman is affected by kryptonite in a melted form if he drank it -> who cares, neither exist in reality. If we don't have the technology, and I'm not a scientist or an expert to know if we do or don't so, really, please do correct me if we do have such a technology or even good theories how to get there, but if we don't, we can't know how it would work once we invent it so we can't possibly learn anything by theorizing about it's use; and that is if the rules that govern reality even allow for such a machine to be invented.. For instance you still haven't addressed the obstacle of the Pauli exclusion principle in quantum mechanics that seems to stand in the way of your scenario being even possible. Basically I'm asking what do you hope to learn about reality by examining a fantasy? |
|
|
|
And I know you said it twice that quantum teleportation exists, but that doesn't tell me anything. I'm asking you if we have the technology to teleport a living organism?
I'll answer that when you tell me if we can do what you proposed with clones. Probably not. I don't know.. I guess I wont get an answer then? |
|
|
|
Smart.  |
|
|
|
And I know you said it twice that quantum teleportation exists, but that doesn't tell me anything. I'm asking you if we have the technology to teleport a living organism?
I'll answer that when you tell me if we can do what you proposed with clones. Probably not. I don't know.. |
|
|
|
Right, cloning and memories alone aren't enough, you'd have to also feed the clone exactly the same molecules, grow it in exactly the same environment ect.. basically replicate the exact path of growth of the original, which is still a lot more likely doable unlike teleporting which doesn't exist.
Actually, your clone example above would likely be more difficult, or at least as difficult. And I'm not claiming that we'd ever be able to teleport human beings. However, I must point out now, for the second time in a row, contrary to what you keep insisting, quantum teleportation does exist. Is that teleportation of a living organism? As for imaginary devices in thought experiments, I consider you to be rather presumptuous and ill informed when you accuse me of not hoping to illustrate something or learn something by engaging in such thought experiments. Please direct your argument instead to those who have benefited from other thought experiments proposed by Heisenberg, Einstein, Bohr, Chalmers, Hofstadter, and others.
As far as I know they built their thought experiments on what they observed was possible meaning ontop of the rules of reality, without fiction. See the problem I'm having with your example is that you cannot possibly know the rules it's governed by to be able to even begin imagining the results? With reality it's easy; we know what rules govern it. But as soon as you add fiction - a device that can teleport life - do you not, at that point, introduce a device for which you do not know what rules govern it and if so can not reach any useful conclusions? For example doesn't quantum mechanics say that no two electrons in the whole universe can be alike(same state) and that's a rule about reality which goes exactly against your thought experiment? And I know you said it twice that quantum teleportation exists, but that doesn't tell me anything. I'm asking you if we have the technology to teleport a living organism? |
|
|
|
|
Btw you were right, I looked up Dan Dennett on youtube and I already enjoy what little I saw. His theory is very close to how I think about the world.
So thanks!
|
|
|
|
You said "There is nothing pointless about pondering the ramifications of another physical structure that has the exact same molecular content as another." Isn't this what we call cloning?
No. Riiiiight, but some magical teleportation device does? Dude, before you go on, figure out why cloning is not what you think it is. I know why cloning doesn't fit your scenario. Because by itself it's not enough to complete your scenario. It lacks the "memories" of a life. But what I'm asking is surely if you're going to deal in hypotheticals, where you're imagining a scenario just to ponder it's hypothetical ramifications, shouldn't it be a lot more fruitful if you chose a scenario that starts with reality and adds something that we know how to do but is only extremely hard such as cloning an individual and then having the clone have the same exact memories and not something we don't know how to do such as teleporting life? In answer to your question as to it being more fruitful, the answer is no. Plain and simple. Care to elaborate? The purpose of thought experiments is to illustrate the conundrums that exist within a particular domain of study, and by doing so, those who become familiar with said thought experiments can then see the domain of study in a new light, which might allow them to think about the problem differently, and to better understand it. Generally, the purpose of a thought experiment is not to find a way to build the gadgets in the thought experiment. Equally important with regard to this particular matter, cloning is irrelevant, and will yield nothing. Clones not only don't have the same molecular structure and memories over time, they never have the same molecular structure from the start, as their growth is a function of the molecules they assimilate, which is different for each individual. Right, cloning and memories alone aren't enough, you'd have to also feed the clone exactly the same molecules, grow it in exactly the same environment ect.. basically replicate the exact path of growth of the original, which is still a lot more likely doable unlike teleporting which doesn't exist. But that's besides the point because you apparently believe there's something to be learned by observing a fantasy instead of the reality. Tell me what can you learn from my original example?: Isn't this a pointless scenario since we don't have a such a machine and we do not know if matter can even be manipulated in such a way?
Absolutely not. There is nothing pointless about pondering the ramifications of another physical structure that has the exact same molecular content as another. It's an absolutely necessary thing to consider if you wish to understand the ramifications of nature. It's very much worth considering as a mental exercise. Both my super man example and your teleporting example are fiction, they don't exist, so please explain to me what we can learn about reality through examining fiction? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
