this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
202 points (91.1% liked)

Memes

45730 readers
749 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bstix@feddit.dk 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's unlikely to have ever happened.

2^42 is 25 times the total number of people ever born in all of history.

[–] DaCrazyJamez@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

...i think it's quite a bit more than that

I had to check the math and I was surprised that 2^42 is “only” 4.4 trillion. Thought it would be a lot greater like there are less atoms in the universe similar to the uniqueness of a shuffled deck of cards.

[–] 30p87@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, twins aren't identical copies either. Different fingerprint etc.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fingerprints aren't genetically coded, and clones wouldn't have the same fingerprints, either.

[–] 30p87@feddit.de -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I typically associate "clone" with "an exact copy", with the same exact molecular layout and even thoughts. So a literal exact copy. Clones on a DNA basis, so something possible for years, would indeed be different in some details.

[–] PM_ME_FAT_ENBIES@lib.lgbt 3 points 1 year ago

The definition of "clone" you believe in is science fiction nonsense. Why believe in nonsense when the scientific definition of clone is different?