tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2289595359432630118.post4732941375371640727..comments2024-03-18T04:36:26.547-04:00Comments on Paul Levinson's Infinite Regress: Foundation, Dune, and Laplace's DemonPaul Levinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07609987407926836519noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2289595359432630118.post-1238701469261060512013-02-09T12:31:18.185-05:002013-02-09T12:31:18.185-05:00Yes - you're in the right place. I came up wi...Yes - you're in the right place. I came up with Levinson Copy Paradox in the late1980s. It recognizes that the attempt to create a perfect copy or duplicate of a unique object is self-defeating, since if the copy were like the original in all respects, it would rob the original of its uniqueness, and would in this crucial respect no longer be a copy of the original. (And would in the bargain transform the original - making it no longer unique - rather than copy it.) I wrote about this in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000OT7WDK/ref=nosim/?tag=dexter2a-20" rel="nofollow">The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution</a>, p. 52.Paul Levinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07609987407926836519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2289595359432630118.post-29591666686186749462013-02-09T07:24:56.098-05:002013-02-09T07:24:56.098-05:00The Copy Fallacy: A perfect copy is not just ident...The Copy Fallacy: A perfect copy is not just identical to the original, but is itself. The Levinson paradox: To the degree that a copy approaches perfection, it defeats itself. For one, due to the loss of the uniqueness of the original. Not to mention the destruction of the concepts and words: "unique", "self", "one of a kind", "individual", and many more.<br />Back in the 1980's there was a false concept (we'd call it a meme now) that if someone sent me something and I didn't have time to read it or think about it, (think about it: inculcate it into my reality, respond to it, set priorities, actively ignore it, etc.), I could Xerox it (copy it) and file it, (my ass would be covered), If it ever came to be important, I could dig it out, and read it before I GOT CAUGHT. I could get my excuse/rationalization/ anonymity / "I wasn't there" arguments all prepared. Therefore, I never have to read anything I have a copy of; I only have to read everything that I don't have a copy of... Do you see where this is going? There are an infinite number of things I don't have a copy of (well, infinity minus X, where X is my file drawer). Anyway, quantum mechanics takes care of these problems; there is no "exact" anything, original or copy.Rapsiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14345788686633435750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2289595359432630118.post-90984763962042326882013-02-09T07:05:14.945-05:002013-02-09T07:05:14.945-05:00I am looking for "The Levinson Copy Paradox&q...I am looking for "The Levinson Copy Paradox". Am I on the right track with Paul Levinson?Rapsiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14345788686633435750noreply@blogger.com