On 13 Dec 2012, at 22:25, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Yes, and there are two of them and so there are 2 "heres" and 2 "not
theres". So what ONE and only ONE thing does John Clark the
experimenter enter into the lab notebook??
> You are hopeless. I've answered this at least 10 times.
Avoided the question at least 10 times. Jason #1 says Washington and
Jason #2 says Moscow, there is only one lab notebook and only one
experimenter,
In the 3p-view. But with the Computationalist Theory of Mind (CTM,
alias comp), there are two first person points of view, and the
question concerns them, not the 3p view. As J ason said, you just
limit yourself to the 3p view, and never put you feet in the shoes of
the reconstituted person, as asked in the protocol.
You stuck yourselves in the corner quasi deliberately, to avoid to
proceed in the reasoning.
Bruno
so what one and only one check mark should the experimenter put in
that one and only one lab notebook, the one next to the word
"Washington" or the one next to the word "Moscow"?
> Can anyone (the 1 or 2 remaining John Clarks, being the only
person (or people) left on Earth) say whether he was transported
randomly to one of the two locations, or duplicated to two different
locations?
That depends on how much is known. Subjective probability depends on
the amount of information, or lack of it, the person involved has;
and if Many Worlds is correct then all probabilities are subjective.
If you told me nothing about the machine and just said walk into the
chamber and I did so and found myself in Moscow I would have no way
of knowing that there was another John Clark in Washington, nor
would I have any idea why of all the cities in the world you chose
to transport me to Moscow, I would not even know that a reason
existed.
> My bet: you will find some excuse for not answering or merely
ignore this question
You loose.
> as it brings too close to first person indeterminacy for your
comfort.
Well of course I'm uncomfortable with it, most people are, most
people want to know what the future will hold but we don't; and
that's all "first person indeterminacy" is, a pompous way of saying
"I dunno".
> And you proved matter is something not found in mathematics how?
I don't know how to fly to Tokyo on the blueprints of a 747. Do you?
And you proved matter is something not found in mathematics how?
I don't know how to fly to Tokyo on the blueprints of a 747. Do you?
>> If pronouns are not ambiguous John Clark may or may not have the
ability to provide answers, but at least John Clark will understand
the question.
> Or if John Clark is uncomfortable with where he perceives the line
of questions and reasoning to be heading be may make up some excuse
about pronouns or answer a different question than was asked.
Then simply call John Clark's bluff and stop using personal pronouns
with abandon as it their meaning was as clear in a world with
duplicating machines as it is in our world without them.
>>So both are "you" but "you only see through the eyes of one of
them". So which one is blind.
>Neither is blind, but each sees through only one pair of eyes.
OK.
> You (subjectively) survived
Yes, and subjective survival is all I'm interested in, I'm not even
sure what objective survival means.
>as one of them,
One? Which one?
>> if MWI is true in each universe there is one and only one
photographic plate and one and only one spot on it;
> Not in the cosmological form of MWI.
Bullshit.
> As I said before, no information is gained unless you are the one
who enters the duplication chamber.
And that's the difference, a physicist doesn't have to personally
squeeze through those 2 tiny slits to do the experiment, that's the
electrons job, nevertheless he can learn something from just
watching it. Nothing is learned from watching Bruno's experiment.
> You measure the spin state of an electron on the x-axis and find
it is left. MWI says your duplicate in the other branch found it
was right. One of you saw the left-state and became the "saw the
left-state man" and the other saw the right-state and became the
"saw the right-state man". Through the split, duplication, and
observance of something different, each duplicate has acquired the
subjective feeling of observing a random unpredictable event.
Yes.
> Enough time and electrons have been wasted repeating ourselves.
I agree, many free electrons have given their lives for this thread
and there is not much to show for their sacrifice.
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
