--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Bruno
>> And someone asked JC, before the duplication, what do you expect to live. JC
>> remarked that "you" is ambiguous. Oh, but you agreed that you will survive,
>> so you expect to live some experience, no? Let me ask you this how to you
>> evaluate the chance to see 0 on the paper after
Once there are experience, we can only have partial consensus. Now, I know
better salvia than DMT, and the resemblance of the experience is striking.
It goes like
-30% feel the feminine presence (called lady D, or virgin Maria, etc..).
-75% feel the rotation/vortex
-67% feel the alternate
Here's a thread with all the list's alpha-male geniuses mocking someone. Here's
me, the village idiot, convinced they all pass their own idiot test with flying
colours. lol.
I mean if the test involves understanding the implications of psychedelic drugs
then you all just failed to do that. A
@ Pierz
If he refuses to
acknowledge MWI as a valid account due to his pronoun concerns, then
fine, maybe he should publish a refutation of Everett to that
effect.
but isn't John's point that pro-nouns do not cause much trouble when duplicates
end up in separate universes? Thats a
@ Bruno
You forget that you and Peck are the only one having a problem here.
Im not sure thats true. True, there is a fair amount of uncritical support,
but from what I see people kind of give you the benefit of the doubt at step 3
agreeing that there is something wishy washy about it.
. Personally, I don't think you'll ever fix step 3 unless
you try a bit harder.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:45:40 +0200
On 27 Jul 2015, at 05:04, chris peck wrote:@ Bruno
[John]Bruno Marchal
you'll ever fix step 3 unless you try a bit harder.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:45:40 +0200
On 27 Jul 2015, at 05:04, chris peck wrote:@ Bruno
[John]Bruno Marchal is correct, that is not ambiguous
@ John
In MWI You is the only thing that the laws of physics allow Quentin
Anciaux to observe that is organized in a Johnkclarkian way ... With
duplicating chamber stuff if the bet was you will see Moscow I don't know
how to resolve the bet because I don't know who you is.
MWI is
@ Bruno
[John]Bruno Marchal is correct, that is not ambiguous, that is a
flat out logical contradiction.
[Bruno] Where?
The problem arises because if You = person who remembers Helsinki then you
ought to be able replace one for the other without truth values altering. Thats
just
the
Bruno-Quentin approach of praying the problem will go away by pretending it
doesn't exist.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:48:51 +0200
Subject: RE: A riddle for John Clark
From: allco...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Le 23 juil. 2015 05:09, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
Quentin
Then under MWI, same thing you're garanteed to see all results, so
probability should also be one
Deterministic branching leads to trouble rendering the idea of probability
coherent. Go figure! Who would ever have guessed determinism and chance were
difficult to marry...
Subject:
Two mutually exclusive first person experiences cannot be a first person
experience.
Obviously. if I could experience M and W simultaneously they would not be
exclusive by definition .
If anyone besides you thinks I would argue any different they should look
again. I argued that in worlds
the question asked to him in Helsnki concerns his expectation of his
experiences, and thus his experience content, which can only be seeing one
city among W and M, i.e. W or M.
nah. he can expect to have two mutually exclusive experiences. He will dream of
being in Red Square and of having
Simple comp predicts that in W, the H-guy opens the door and sees only W and
~M (as those letters refers to the first person experience, not the
intellectual belief), and that in M, the H-guy opens the door and sees only
M and ~W. Both concludes that P(W M) was 0, and know better, now
: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 7:49 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Since 1961 muslims have been subjected to increasingly draconian
restrictions on their freedome and a media that depicts them in as
dehumanizing way as possible
Maybe the Onion cartoon didn't set anyone off, but it just isn't true that
these three Algerians are the only people who behave psychotically in the face
of free speech.
During the first salvos of the battle of Fallujah the allies ransacked and shut
down the general hospital because it was
yeah, The Grand Budapest Hotel was a blast. Cinema for cinema's sake.
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:39:32 +0200
Subject: Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
From: multiplecit...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Recently had fun with this in cinema, now out on
Alert in the email before you give away crucial details to a
movie? Many of the films mentioned in this thread I haven't seen. If I had
read Chris's post before watching The Prestige I would have been pissed off.
Thanks,Terren
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:20 AM, chris peck chris_peck
It makes even more mysterious your resistance to UDA
Well The Prestige is a film about obsession and the lengths people go to meet
them. Its not about the UDA.
It does contain a teleport machine in it and the naughty magician keeps
duplicating himself and killing off one of the duplicates.
Oh, when it suits your prejudice
it's OK to just count votes. You suddenly no longer need to read the
papers and decide for yourself.
Eh? Why the sour face? I thought you'ld be cracking open the champagne.
There's no consensus. I give you perhaps the best news in history, ever, and
you're
10:13:44 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/8/2014 4:44 AM, chris peck wrote:
Oh,
when it suits your prejudice it's OK to just count
suing
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:06:09PM +, chris peck wrote:
To see if various denier criticisms were valid.
So you accept the claims of climate change advocates as true by default and
only read those papers which have criticisms leveled at them by deniers?
That isn't very even
. This latest row was trigger by
nothing more controversial than that.
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:18:34 +1000
From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:50:07PM +, chris peck
', then it is a
fallacy. Things are not true because people believe them right?
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:59:53 +1200
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 9 April 2014 12:51, chris peck chris_peck
, to the UN?
What is the remediation for this problem and how long will it take to
implement?
-Original Message-
From: chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Apr 6, 2014 7:08 pm
Subject: RE: If you can't disprove the science
looking at the instruments and using their best theories to interpret the
readings - e.g. people who claim that they agree for some psychological reason,
e.g. because they all adhere to some paradigm - are talking bollocks.
On 7 April 2014 14:56, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote
The real story here is that a peer reviewed journal was intimidated into
withdrawing a paper that had passed through the proper review channels.
That the internet is full of conspiracy theory isn't news. And to the extent
that climate science denial is correlated with beliefs in conspiracy
as much responsibility to show why the 1% are wrong as
vica versa.
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 16:51:34 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/6/2014 4:08 PM, chris peck wrote
On 4/6/2014 5:35 PM, chris peck wrote:
Brent
If 100% of scientists were in agreement about climate change,
that fact alone, tells me nothing about the truth of the claims
they actually make.
So does
you know what you're talking about but I haven't got a clue.
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 14:47:42 +1200
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 7 April 2014 14:32, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
consequences such as
'immortality'. We're want something that can be measured.
From: stath...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:12:09 +1100
Subject: Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 25 March 2014 16:58, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote
It's a pretty significant dodgy metaphysical consequence if you actually live
forever.
Its many things. Interesting, strange, wonderful and so on but the one thing it
isn't is significant.
The continuation of an experiential history on some other earth, a history
common to the one that just
stand point they simply do not exist relative to one another.
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:25:11 +1300
Subject: Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 26 March 2014 16:22, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
It's a pretty
I think you're missing Scott's point. The universe is obviously
isomorphic to a mathematical structure, in fact infinitely many
different mathematical structures, all of which are in Borges
Library of Babel. Almost all of them are just lists of what
happens. Scott's point is
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic
about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other
interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would
make you less ill
Hi Bruno
But that can only be a 3-1 description. She handles the 1p by a
maximization of the interests of the copies, and that is equivalent
with the FPI, without naming it.
Funnily enough Bruno, if I was opportunistic I would just about accept
that. I mean personally, I would argue
was
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 1:21:52 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 10, 2014 1:49:01 PM UTC, chris peck wrote:
you are saying that something musically significant happened here
Something significant happened to pop music for sure.
In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod
It depends, sometimes yes... But at other times thought provoking gloom can
be fun, while light, non-gloom fun can seem cheap and pandering. Just
depends on situation. Right now, I don't know if what I'm listening to is
light or gloomy and thought provoking. It has a minimal sort of machine
you are saying that something musically significant happened here
Something significant happened to pop music for sure.
In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of
Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocolate, Boney M, Shawaddywaddy and Billy Ocean. Daddy
Cool. Rockin' All
-
Enthusiastically attack butter (4)
...but anyway, yes, I like the Pistols some of the time, even if they were
McLaren's boy band really.
PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and
even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...)
On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris
basis add Cream and
even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...)
On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
you are saying that something musically significant happened here
Something significant happened to pop music for sure.
In 1977 the charts
.
PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and
even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...)
On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
you are saying that something musically significant happened here
Something
Hi Bruno
With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using different
vocabulary.
Really?
the last time I quoted her:
What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise:
whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see.
Hi Bruno
With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using different vocabulary.
Really?
the last time I quoted her:
What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise:
whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see.
So, she should
Hi Bruno
Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone.
pfft! let me put it this way. There are a bunch of perspectives on subjective
uncertainty available. Yours and Greave's to mention just two. They are
mutually incompatible and neither of them has been refuted to the 'satisfaction
of
Hi Bruno
ou cannot say something like this. It is unscientific in the extreme. You
must say at which step rigor is lacking.
I think you're missing the fact that I was poking fun at a comment you made to
Liz. Don't worry about it.
You make vague negative proposition containing precise
Hi Jason/Gabriel
Thanks for the posts. They were both really clear. I can see that it was a
mistake to hedge my bets on exact figures and also, given Jason's comments, to
think that seemingly regular sequences were quite common.
I do maintain that proportions of roughly 50/50 splits are a
Hi Bruno
The question is: can you refute this.
To my own satisfaction? Yes. To your satisfaction? Apparantly not. Though
perhaps you have an ideological agenda and are just trying very hard not to be
refuted?
And for the UDA, you don't need the 50%. You need only to assess the
Hi Liz
0001 0010 0011 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1010
1011 1100 1101 1110
Of which I'm fairly sure half the digits are 0 and half 1!
What am I missing here?
If you concatenate all those strings together you'll get a bigger string in
which the proportion of
Hi Liz
I'm not sure I follow.
Me neither.
wrote down your room number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that
the sequence of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros
occurring about 50% of the time.
there would be no 'about' it were your interpretation right, Liz.
converge to 1/2 in probability. This is exactly
the way prediction of probabilities are evaluated experimentally.
It is irrelevant that the proportion of subsequences that have
exactly equally 1s and 0s goes down.
Brent
On 3/3/2014 8:32 PM, chris
If you repeated the cloning experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote
down your room number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the
sequence of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros occurring
about 50% of the time.
There's something strikes me as very
On 3/2/2014 11:36 PM, chris peck wrote:
If you repeated the cloning experiment
from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number
each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence of
zeros and ones you'd written looked random
Hi Edgar
It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by
quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be
no deterministic rules for aligning
separate spacetime fragments thus nature is forced to make those
alignments randomly.
Far out, man!
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014
Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-25 8:43 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Quentin
That's nonsense,
The point wasn't whether you think its nonsense or not. I couldn't care less
about that. we were arguing about whether there are Oxford
Hi Liz
In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of you has
been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split.
Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is your criterion for
identity over time?
With regards to Bruno's steps, at this point I
On 26 February 2014 15:16, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Liz
In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of you has
been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split.
Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is your criterion
Hi Bruno
Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views.
There is no such confusion. I haven't seen anyone confusing these.
She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect
(with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite.
But, If she had of said that you'd both be
Chris.
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:28:53 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-26 7:21 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Bruno
Yes, it is the common confusion between 1
)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-26 7:31 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Liz
I meant changed from our everyday definition, in which we normally assume
there is only one you, which is (or is at least associated with) your
physical structure. Which we
views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
This is the same as saying
frequencies of me seeing ups and downs but
not probabilities of seeing up or down.
All the best
Chris.
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:30:48 +1300
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 25 February 2014 13:05, chris peck
Hi Quentin
That's nonsense,
The point wasn't whether you think its nonsense or not. I couldn't care less
about that. we were arguing about whether there are Oxford Dons who adopt the
same standpoint as me, and given your little outburst above I think you've just
discovered that there are.
Hi Liz
Let's also suppose you don't know which solar system you will be sent to,
and that in fact the matter transmitter is supposed to send you to A or B
with equal probability based on some quantum coin flip. But by accident it
duplicates you, and sends you to both. This effectively
Hi Quentin
then I can't see how you could still agree with many world interpretation
and reject probability, that's not consistent... unless of course, you
reject MWI.
I definitely wouldn't say I accept MWI. But even so, not everyone who does
accept it agrees that there is subjective
Hi Liz
Suppose for the sake of argument that the matter
transmitter sends you to another solar system where you will live out
the reminder of your life. Maybe you committed some crime and this is
the consequence, to be transported :) A malfunction causes you
to be duplicated and sent to both
Hi Bruno
By and large you didn't get my response to Quentin and largely the comments you
made didn't actually address the comments I was making, or the questions I was
asking Quentin. It seems more as if you were addressing comments you hoped I
was making but didn't. With respect then I've
+1100
From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 03:48:43AM +, chris peck wrote:
My probabilities get assigned in the same way. ie: chance of seeing solar
system A is 1. I
Hi Quentin
They don't pose problem in this experiment and in the question asked. So I'll
try one last time, and will try à la Jesse, with simple yes/no questions and
explanation from your part.
So I will first describe the setup and will suppose for the argument that what
we will do
how can facts exist that are not grounded in observation at some point?
Russell and Liz are wandering around the countryside and Liz points at the
ground and says:
there's a gold coin buried right there.
Russell says:
no there isn't
They both walk on without looking. And in the subsequent
Hi Quentin
I do not, valid critics are valid,
By definition mate.
but when you point to someone the inconsistency in his argument and that he
maintains for years the same invalid argument that means that person does
not want to argue, he wants to defend a position at all costs, that's
Hi Bruno
Come on, the poor guy tried hard since two years, and has convinced only him
That's a good way of spinning the fact that for two years it is in reality you
who has failed to convince him.
All the best
Chris
From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Hi Liz
Personally, I feel that objections to comp on the basis of what we can and
can't do with our present technology are a bit hair splitting, or perhaps
simply evading the issue. Anyone who has accepted the MWI has accepted that
duplication is possible.
my objections were to do with the
Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc
Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument) and I
invited him to elaborate, as that might give possible lightening. He did not
comply, and I was beginning that UDA was problematical for people named
Chris.
I think Clark should elaborate
you guys should check out
Dark City (has a platonic reality isn't really real thing going on)
Moon (has a memory/identity/AI thing going on)
Source Code (has a 'its just numbers being computed' thing going on)
Tarkovsky's Solaris and Stalker are also pretty stunning if you can handle 10
I'm not an expert on climate change. I know a couple of things though.
I know that according to a fairly large scientific consensus the planet might
be getting hotter. I know that these predictions are based on flawed models of
the weather system and how it operates. I also know that whilst
http://adaptationresourcekit.squarespace.com/storage/climate%20change%20cartoons_better%20world.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1302730968594
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:48:50 -0800
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
Hi Jason (again)
in your response to Brent:
Personally I believe no theory that aims to attach persons to one
psychological or physiological continuity can be successful.
ok, but in Bruno's step 3 it is taken as axiomatic that you survive in both
branches because there is a continuity of
usage, in which you have no uncertainty because you know
future chris pecks, following duplication, will individually experience all
possible outcomes, such certainty ignores the personal feelings of the
original Chris peck stepping into the duplicator and experiencing himself
becoming one
yep. organity is emergent.
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:46:54 +1300
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 25 October 2013 14:31, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at natural presences, like atoms or galaxies, the
The alien might be completely confident in his judgement, having a
brain made of exotic matter. He would argue that however complex its
behaviour, a being made of ordinary matter that evolved naturally
could not possibly have an understanding of what it is doing.
Aliens don't matter. They can be
On 10/24/2013 8:09 PM, chris peck
wrote:
At this juncture then it becomes moot whether the
computer is learning or thinking about grammar. It is a matter of
philosophical taste. It certainly isn't learning or thinking as we
learnt or thought when
by changing its definition.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:52:39 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/24/2013 8:41 PM, chris peck
wrote:
Unfortunately we don't even have
Stephen Lin.
A new bike?
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:43:32 -0400
Subject: Re: What's my name and what do you think I need to help me along my
journey?
From: yann...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Are you the famous basketball player from Harvard, then the Knicks and now
of
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136
There are multiple experiencers, each having possibly different experiences.
For some class of those experiencers you can attach the label chris peck.
This allows you to say: chris peck experiences all outcomes but that does
not imply each experiencer
Hi Jason
Subject refers to the I, the indexical first-person.
The word 'I' is indexical, like 'now' and 'here'. The experience isn't
indexical, its just me.
This page offers some examples of the distinction (
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/#PurIndTruDem ).
Thanks. Im
Hi Bruno
Hi Bruno
The uncertainty is objective
How can uncertainty be objective Bruno?
Uncertainty is a predicate applicable to experiences only.
To insist, I use first person indeterminacy instead of subjective
indeterminacy
In step 3 you ask the reader to assess what he would 'feel'
But that feeling only arises from the assumption (or gut feeling) that there
is only one observer, both before and after the measurement.
Quite, it arises from a mistake which would vanish in a true 'comp
practitioner'.
The feeling that although I would become each observer and therefore
Hi Bruno
I don't see why. There is a chance of 1/2 to feel oneself in M, and of 1/2
to feel oneself in W, but the probability is 1 (assuming comp, the protocol,
etc.) to find oneself alive.
This begs the question. And the probability of finding oneself alive is 1 in
both your view and
Hi Liz
This is not, however, how people normally view these matters. The physicist
feels that he had a (say) 50% chance of him observing spin-up despite his
knowledge of the MWI, and I guess Helsinki man feels the same way about
arriving in Moscow, if only because our brains are wired to
Hi Brent
But one of the essential things about quantum mechanics is futures are
uncertain even give complete knowldge.
I disagree. This is still 'up for grabs' and dependent on whether the
interpretation is indeterminsitic (copenhagen,etc) or deterministic (MWI). Its
a feature of MWI that
Hi Liz
Oh dear, I think I will go and lie down now.
(Or then again, I won't...)
Precisely. Being a true MWI believer you can be certain of both. :)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:35:56 +1300
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To:
Hi Bruno
Are you saying that the step 3 would provide a logical reason to say no to
the doctor, and thus abandoning comp?
I'm saying only the suicidal would expect a 50/50 chance of experiencing Moscow
(or Washington) after teleportation and then say yes to the doctor.
regards
From:
...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 14:03:53 +0200
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2013/10/7 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
Hi Bruno
Are you saying that the step 3 would provide a logical reason to say no to
the doctor
Hi Brent
This is true, but it's also something Bruno has said many times. If comp is
correct (to the extent that the mind is a computation, at least) then this
is happening all the time. Heraclitus was right, you aren't the same person
even from one second to the next.
I think Heraclitus
a bad name?
On 4 October 2013 06:28, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.comwrote:
You were kind enough to let the list know, along with Chris Peck, that the
flaw in the reasoning concerning step 3 of the UDA is it sucks.
Unless you guys backtrack and quit abusing the fact
Hi Bruno
[JC] Because step 3 sucks.
[Bruno] Why? You have not yet make a convincing point on this.
His point is convincing me.
regards.
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 23:18:07 +0200
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: te...@telmomenezes.com
To:
Hi Liz
Is there something wrong with quantum indeterminacy?
Apart from the fact the MWI removes it? And that that is the point of MWI? And
that probability questions in MWI are notoriously thorny?
This is why I resort to the Quantum Suicide experiment or better still to
Quantum Russian
Hi Liz
The scientist naturally assigns a 50% chance to each outcome, even though he
knows that he's duplicated by worlds splitting, and that in reality he will
see both But there seems to be a lot of trouble with the comp version
for some reason.
Bruno has a meeting in washington
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
