3 ms·

May I suggest that you didn't read my comment then? That's not what I was answering.

lisper 8y ago
That's what it sounded like to me: "It means that it has history attached to it and that it's traveled in time" For this statement to be true, or even meaningful, there has to be a meaningful referent for "it", and that referent has to have continuity of identity if the word "history" is to be meaningful. In this case "it" is a painting, which is a physical object. But physical objects do NOT have continuity of identity. Put this another way: consider the following two scenarios: 1. Take every atom in the Mona Lisa and replace it with a different atom of the same element and isotope in the same physical location. 2. Take the Mona Lisa and grind it up into sawdust. I think you will agree that the end result of #1 can me more reasonably regarded as "still the Mona Lisa" than #2. And yet #1 is "different atoms, same arrangement" while 2 is "same atoms, different arrangement." So it's not the atoms that matter, it's the arrangement.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  That it has history attached to it is what makes it valuable. Thats why an original is worth more than a copy. It's the one thing you can't replace the "it's" history. A vase owned by Djengis Kahn is worth more than the same type of vase owned by some no-name. In other words it's not the atoms or the arrangement that matter but the history of the object. It's not the inherent value of the object but the value of the history of the object we assign to it.
  - lisper 8y ago
    You are not hearing what I am saying. "The history of an object" is a concept that ceases to make sense in the presence of atomic-level replication, just as (for example) "simultaneous events" ceases to make sense in the presence of high velocities.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      I am hearing what you are saying its just not true. Its me knowing what the original is thats valuable, the second you replicate it you diminshes the value to me. I.e. the one shipped from earth is more valuable than the one replicated no matter the level of fidelity because I know the difference.
      - lisper 8y ago
        How could you be sure the one shipped from earth was not replicated on earth?
        ThomPete 8y ago
        You can't but that doesn't change much because it's still from earth which makes it more valuable than if it's been made in front of me. Of course you can get scammed you can do that today too. But that has nothing to do with how value is created. Again it's not the object that is valuable it's you deciding it's valuable. Living in a world like that we would find other ways to ensure that we track the authenticity to the extent we can. So value will always be ensured because it's created in the brain not in the object.
        lisper 8y ago
        > > How could you be sure the one shipped from earth was not replicated on earth? > You can't but that doesn't change much because it's still from earth How do you know that? You just conceded that there's no way to know if the thing was replicated before being loaded onto the cargo ship. How do you know that it wasn't replicated on the cargo ship shortly before arrival? > Living in a world like that we would find other ways to ensure that we track the authenticity No, you wouldn't. That's the whole point. In a world with replication technology, the whole concept of "authenticity" becomes every bit as meaningless for physical objects as it already is for digital ones. > So value will always be ensured because it's created in the brain not in the object. This is essentially saying that you will always be able to find suckers. Which may be true, but I would hope that any member of a space-faring species would have a basic understanding of physics, cognitive bias, and logical fallacies.

That's what it sounded like to me: "It means that it has history attached to it and that it's traveled in time" For this statement to be true, or even meaningful, there has to be a meaningful referent for "it", and that referent has to have continuity of identity if the word "history" is to be meaningful. In this case "it" is a painting, which is a physical object. But physical objects do NOT have continuity of identity. Put this another way: consider the following two scenarios: 1. Take every atom in the Mona Lisa and replace it with a different atom of the same element and isotope in the same physical location. 2. Take the Mona Lisa and grind it up into sawdust. I think you will agree that the end result of #1 can me more reasonably regarded as "still the Mona Lisa" than #2. And yet #1 is "different atoms, same arrangement" while 2 is "same atoms, different arrangement." So it's not the atoms that matter, it's the arrangement.

ThomPete 8y ago
That it has history attached to it is what makes it valuable. Thats why an original is worth more than a copy. It's the one thing you can't replace the "it's" history. A vase owned by Djengis Kahn is worth more than the same type of vase owned by some no-name. In other words it's not the atoms or the arrangement that matter but the history of the object. It's not the inherent value of the object but the value of the history of the object we assign to it.
- lisper 8y ago
  You are not hearing what I am saying. "The history of an object" is a concept that ceases to make sense in the presence of atomic-level replication, just as (for example) "simultaneous events" ceases to make sense in the presence of high velocities.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I am hearing what you are saying its just not true. Its me knowing what the original is thats valuable, the second you replicate it you diminshes the value to me. I.e. the one shipped from earth is more valuable than the one replicated no matter the level of fidelity because I know the difference.
    - lisper 8y ago
      How could you be sure the one shipped from earth was not replicated on earth?
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        You can't but that doesn't change much because it's still from earth which makes it more valuable than if it's been made in front of me. Of course you can get scammed you can do that today too. But that has nothing to do with how value is created. Again it's not the object that is valuable it's you deciding it's valuable. Living in a world like that we would find other ways to ensure that we track the authenticity to the extent we can. So value will always be ensured because it's created in the brain not in the object.
        lisper 8y ago
        > > How could you be sure the one shipped from earth was not replicated on earth? > You can't but that doesn't change much because it's still from earth How do you know that? You just conceded that there's no way to know if the thing was replicated before being loaded onto the cargo ship. How do you know that it wasn't replicated on the cargo ship shortly before arrival? > Living in a world like that we would find other ways to ensure that we track the authenticity No, you wouldn't. That's the whole point. In a world with replication technology, the whole concept of "authenticity" becomes every bit as meaningless for physical objects as it already is for digital ones. > So value will always be ensured because it's created in the brain not in the object. This is essentially saying that you will always be able to find suckers. Which may be true, but I would hope that any member of a space-faring species would have a basic understanding of physics, cognitive bias, and logical fallacies.