4 ms·

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" h

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.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        You are still too focused on the object. A Ming vase has no inherent value, we apply value to it. I am saying that there will be fraud but also plenty of normal decent people who do not cheat, just like today. I could hire someone to make sure there was no replicator on the ship just as an example. There could be procedures in place on earth to make sure its still the original. You are completely disregarding the human part which is why you end up with the conclusion you do.
        lisper 8y ago
        No, I get that humans can attach value to things for irrational reasons. But you don't seem to grasp the impact that replication technology would have. Look at the diamond market, which is collapsing because of the advent of artificial diamonds. DeBeers tried to rescue it by promulgating the myth that natural diamonds are somehow superior to artificial ones, but this failed because they are indistinguishable. The exact same thing will happen to art when replicas can be made that are indistinguishable from the originals. The only reason humans care about old things is that at the moment they are still hard to replicate, and that makes them scarce. As soon as it's easy to make something that is equivalent to an old thing in every measurable way they will no longer be scarce and their value will plummet just like everything else that can be mass-produced.

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.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        You are still too focused on the object. A Ming vase has no inherent value, we apply value to it. I am saying that there will be fraud but also plenty of normal decent people who do not cheat, just like today. I could hire someone to make sure there was no replicator on the ship just as an example. There could be procedures in place on earth to make sure its still the original. You are completely disregarding the human part which is why you end up with the conclusion you do.
        lisper 8y ago
        No, I get that humans can attach value to things for irrational reasons. But you don't seem to grasp the impact that replication technology would have. Look at the diamond market, which is collapsing because of the advent of artificial diamonds. DeBeers tried to rescue it by promulgating the myth that natural diamonds are somehow superior to artificial ones, but this failed because they are indistinguishable. The exact same thing will happen to art when replicas can be made that are indistinguishable from the originals. The only reason humans care about old things is that at the moment they are still hard to replicate, and that makes them scarce. As soon as it's easy to make something that is equivalent to an old thing in every measurable way they will no longer be scarce and their value will plummet just like everything else that can be mass-produced.