On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> OK, you know more about your homemade word that I do so I defer to your > greater expertise, I don't believe in this thing called "comp". > > > From your reply to Craig, I think that you do. Unless you have change > your mind. > I haven't changed my mind on this matter recently and until one year ago and I joined this list I had never heard of "comp", so I defer to your greater expertise on the meaning of your homemade word. It now appears that I do believe in this thing called "comp". >> you predicted it would turn out to be W or M but not both, so to confirm >> your prediction and claim victory all you have to do is tell me how the >> experiment turned out, was it W or M? >> > > > OK. My prediction is "W or M but not both". In that case both confirms. > The prediction was not confirmed because after the experiment was over nobody said "I saw W or M". And anyway only one of them is of interest because only one of them is "you" according to Bruno Marchal, otherwise the question "which ONE did you see?" would be nonsense, it's as if I had 2 apple pies and I asked "which ONE is a apple pie?". You predicted W or M but not both, so which did it turn out to be? >> So which was it W or M? > > > W for the W-couples, and M for the M couples. > I was pleased to note that you said "and" not "or". >> Before QM says the photon will hit here or there but AFTER the >> experiment you know with 100% certainty that the photon hit the >> photographic plate here and not there, >> > > > before, in Helsinki you have probability, but after pushing on the > button, then, in all circumstances you see a definite result > In the two slit experiment the definite result was the that photon hit the photographic plate right there and not over there and no probability or theory was used or needed, all that was needed was a darkroom to develop the plate. So what was the definite result of your experiment, W or M? >before, in Helsinki you have probability, but after pushing on the button, > then, in all circumstances you see a definite result > AND I'M ASKING WHAT IT WAS, W OR M!!!! >> and so we can test theories. In your thought experiment you used your > theory and said it would be W or M but not both, AFTER the experiment you > claim that all you can still say is W or M, > > In your imagination only. All the copies can say where they are after the > experience. You attribute me statements that I have never said. > John Clark is not interested in "all the copies" John Clark is only interested in "you", Bruno Marchal predicted that "you" will only see ONE city so which ONE was "you"? Was "you" in W or was "you" in M? It's OK to say "or" in making a prediction but not in reporting a experimental result. > You can test the probability, by iterating the experience, > Tell me how to do this. How do you do the counting? You say that after each iteration you can put a mark next to W or M but not both, so tell me where to put the mark. >>> When we open the door of the reconstitution box, the measurement gives > unambiguously a definite outcome. > >> Then I ask yet again, was the unambiguous definite outcome W or M? > The point is that it can only be one of them, for both subject. So it was > W for one of them, and M for the other. The question bears on the first > person experience, > Then John Clark asks yet again, which one is "you"? Forget about prediction, after it's all over from the first person experience which city did "you" end up seeing, W or M? > You confuse the result of the measurement (which can only be W or only M > >So which one was it W or M? W for one half of the copies, and W for the other halves. > Yes obviously, but Bruno Marchal insisted that "you" will see W or M but not both, so which one turned out to be "you", the one that saw W or the one that saw M? "You" can't be both because that's John Clark's position. John Clark understands that Bruno Marchal's theory can't predict which one, but what was the experimental result? From the first person point of view which Bruno Marchal likes so very much which one turned out to be "you"? >>> Same with the two slits: QM describes the two different outcomes of the >>> measurement >>> >> >> >> Yes QM predicts the photon will hit here or there with a certain >> probability, but afterward the measurement produces only one outcome, as >> can be seen when we develop the photographic plate >> > > > There is no reduction. In Everett QM, there are many photographic plates, > containing respectively different John Clark looking at them. > And for each point on the plate there is a John Clark observing that the photon hit that particular spot and no other, so each time the 2 slit experiment is repeated a definite result is found, the photon hit RIGHT THERE. What definite outcome did your experiment produce, W or M? > >>and see only one point not two, its a point right there plain as day >> with no doubt whatsoever. Your theory predicts "or", it says there will be >> one and only one result so all I want to know is what that result is, was >> the outcome of the measurement, W or M? >> > > >> Come on. It is very simple that you have to ask that question to all > copies, and that you will have all value. the same happens if you could > interview all the John Clark bifurcating on an iterated Schroedingers cat > type of measurement. > There are a infinite number of cats in boxes and and infinite number of John Clarks opening the lid of a box and looking inside, and all the John Clarks won't all see the same thing but every one of those John Clarks forms a very solid unambiguous opinion on the health the cat after seeing what's inside that box. If the Schrodinger cat experiment is repeated many times sometimes the cat will be alive and sometimes it will be dead but each iteration of the experiment produces a unambiguous result. What unambiguous result did you obtain in your experiment, W or M? >> tell me how you score this thing, how do you do the counting? After just >> one event I would put check marks next to both W AND M, but you disagree >> and say it's W OR M, so I ask again, after one event do you put check marks >> next to W or M? >> > > To W, for the experience of seeing W. And M for the experience of seeing > M. > So now you agree with me that in counting the outcome of each iteration of the test you should put a mark next to W AND M. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
