On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
It's not enough to assert that evolutionary designs (teleonomy) and
rational designs (teleology) are different, I am asking you to explain how
it is possible for them to be different
The difference is Evolution
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
The difference is Evolution doesn't understand the concept of one step
backward 2 steps forward for one thing, I went into considerable more
detail about this in my last post and also gave you 4 more reasons how and
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand the question because I'm not clear on what these
differences refers to.
The differences between evolutionary nature (teleonomy) and rational
design (teleology) that we are talking about.
For God's sake!
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
how can reason be completely different from evolution if reason itself
is a consequence of nothing but evolution.
Random mutation can wire together a small number of cells such that if
there is a sudden change in the
Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Wrote:
Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had over 3
billion years to work on the problem but it couldn't even come up with a
macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 degrees!
First of all, 360 degrees rotation is present in
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
When you say Random mutation can wire together a small number of cells
such that if there is a sudden change in the light levels in the
environment, like a shadow covering it, a snail will retreat into its
shell, you
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
Yes, so a human can jump directly from the tangled mess of DOS to a clean
streamlined operating system like LINUX, but Evolution can only add even
more tangled bells and whistles to DOS.
John K Clark
Actually,
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To paraphrase Carl, 'First, you have to invent the universe.'
You want to know why there is something rather than nothing and Science
can't provide a good answer to that, but depending on exactly what you mean
by nothing it can
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves
sensibly with just a few transistors.
Only because he lives in a universe in which the possibility of
teleology is fully supported from the
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
I explained in a post above why evolution does not select weels. An
autonomous living being must be topologically connected, and weels are not.
Explaining why Evolution is incompetent does not make it one bit less
incompetent.
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
We know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics in this
universe allow for the creation of consciousness, we may not know how they
do it but we know for a fact that it can be done.
Absolutely not. We know no such thing.
How David Deutsch can watch a computer beat the 2 best human Jeopardy!
players on planet Earth and then say that AI has made “no progress whatever
during the entire six decades of its existence” is a complete mystery to me.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, which computers do you think have conscious experiences? Windows
laptops? Deep Blue? Cable TV boxes?
How the hell should I know if computers have conscious experiences? How the
hell should I know if people have conscious
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I have no trouble at all saying that zero computers are conscious and
that all living people have had conscious experiences.
Fine say what you want, but I'll never be able to prove you right and I'll
never be able to prove you
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Oct 2012, at 13:31, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think that consciousness, intelligence and some measure of free will are
necessary and inseparable parts of life itself.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Consciousness is easy if you already have consciousness. It is impossible
if you don't.
But you believe in panexperientialism, you believe that everything is
conscious, so if you are correct then consciousness is not only
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Free Will-- You need enough freedom
My difficulty with the free will noise is not the will part, you want
to do some things and don't want to do others and that's clear, my
difficulty is with the free part; and all you're saying
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Comp seems to avoid this insurmountable problem by avoiding the issue of
whether the computer actually had an experience, only that it appeared to
have an experience. So comp's requirement is as if rather than is.
In
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's [free will] a simple enough concept
I think that's true, although I may be using a somewhat different meaning
of the word simple than you are.
that it is used in law courts
True.
a venue not noted for
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 , Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
IMHO everything that happens happens for a reason.
Opinions, humble or otherwise, really don't count for much, the universe
will continue doing what it is doing regardless of your opinion; and modern
physics tells us that it is
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Keep in mind that I use the compatibilist definition of free will, which
is the (machine) ability to exploits its self-indetermination (with
indetermination in the Turing sense, (not in the comp first person sense,
nor the quantum
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So you see no reason to draw a legal distinction between a banker to
takes money from his bank to support a more lavish life style and one who
does it to keep a bank robber from shooting him?
No.
John K Clark
--
You received this
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Keep in mind that I use the compatibilist definition of free will,
which is the (machine) ability to exploits its self-indetermination (with
indetermination in the Turing sense, (not in the comp first person sense,
nor the quantum
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
if you could tell me how to determine if a computer has intelligence
The same way I determine if one of my fellow human beings is intelligent,
if he beats me at a intellectual task then he's intelligent, in fact he's
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 , Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
NDEs are like UFOs.
Yes they're both bullshit. The trouble with UFOs is that people forget what
the U stands for and keep identifying the damn thing as a flying saucer
from another planet; I see a light in the sky and I don't know
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
This is supposed to be a scientific discussion.
Yes, so why are you talking about NDEs and UFOs? If I was interested in
that crap I wouldn't read a scientific journal or go to the Everything
List, I'd just pick up a copy of the
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
But if a computer beats you at an intelligent task, it would have to be
programmed to do so.
And you would have to be educated to do so.
which means that its intelligence would be that of the programmer.
Then how can the
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
you can see from the differences between conjoined twins, who have the
same nature and nurture, the same environment, that they are not the same
people
That is true they are not the same people, and just like EVERYTHING else
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
And lets not forget those who insist that in order to qualify as free
will the conscious choice must not be done for a reason AND it must not
not be done for a reason.
Why? They are inconsistent
Very inconsistent!
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Just because it looks to us that the computer is following rules doesn't
mean that it is.
So now you don't like computers because they don't follow rules, before you
didn't like computers because they did follow rules.
We
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Since we know that our consciousness
You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know about
your consciousness; assuming of course that you are conscious, if not then
you don't even know that.
is exquisitely
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I think he [Chambers] goes wrong by assuming a priori that consciousness
is functional,
I've asked you this question dozens of times but you have never coherently
answered it: If consciousness doesn't do anything
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know
about your consciousness; assuming of course that you are conscious, if not
then you don't even know that.
If that were true, then you don't know
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Did I ever say that I thought computers followed rules?
I was under the impression that you believed all computers did was blindly
follow programed rules. Apparently not. Not only are your ideas foolish
they are inconsistently
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I know you don't have a proof of the Goldbach Conjecture. Well OK, I
don't know that with absolute certainty, maybe you have a proof but are
keeping it secret for some strange reason, but my knowledge is more than
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution can't see it, so
how and why did Evolution produce it? The fact that you have no answer to
this means your ideas are fatally flawed.
I don't see this as a *fatal*
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
That there are literally laws which physics obeys is a fairy tale.
That statement is ignorance pure and simple.
How can reason be created for a reason (circular) or created not for a
reason
I don't understand
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
while most people are content to accept that these [physical] 'laws'
simply 'are', I am more inclined to question what exactly we mean by that.
It's a pity you weren't also inclined to question what exactly we mean
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You are the one that is saying everything happens for a reason or not for
a reason.
Yes.
Which category do laws fall under?
I haven't the slightest idea, but I do know that it's got to be one or the
other.
Yet you
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I do know that it's got to be one or the other.
But I have just proved to you that it cannot be either one.
So you have just proven that X is not Y and X is not not Y. BULLSHIT!
you don't have the wisdom to know when
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you can do something for your own personal reasons then you have free
will. If you demand that personal reasons still must always come from
outside of the person themselves[...]
But I don't demand that at all! You might
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
So lets see, a giant junkyard magnet is a devastating logical argument
but a junkyard car crusher is not. Explain to me how that works.
Because talking about how you want to kill me in an argument about
computers
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Darwin does not need to be wrong. Consciousness role can be deeper, in
the evolution/selection of the laws of physics from the coherent dreams
(computations from the 1p view) in arithmetic.
I have no idea what that
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I have no idea what that means, not a clue
Probably for the same reason that you stop at step 3 in the UD Argument.
Probably. I remember I stopped reading after your proof of the existence of
a new type of indeterminacy never
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Creating structure out of a random environment requires intelligence, the
ability to make choices on one's own.
Thus we can conclude that when the sun evaporates salty water salt
crystals do not form because a liquid is a
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I stopped reading after your proof of the existence of a new type of
indeterminacy never seen before because the proof was in error, so there
was no point in reading about things built on top of that
From your error you have
afraid to look at the tape,
should I be? If I found out I was the copy what should I do? I suppose I
should morn the death of John Clark, but how can I, I'm not dead. If I am
the copy would that mean that I have no real past and my life is
meaningless? Is it important, or should I just burn the tape
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
it's also true that the letter e is not Shakespeare's play Hamlet,
but its part of it.
By that analogy, you are crediting the letter e for authoring Hamlet.
The letter e did not write Hamlet and neither did one neuron
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
What can you do with your computer that you couldn't do five years ago?
Do a good job at understanding the human voice. Beat the 2 best human
players at Jeopardy. Drive a car safely for many miles over very rough
terrain.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
What can you do with your computer that you couldn't do five years
ago?
Do a good job at understanding the human voice. Beat the 2 best human
players at Jeopardy. Drive a car safely for many miles over very
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
A identical twin is a clone, you're talking about a exact duplicate and
I would shoot him. I was given a gun and I was forced to make a very
emotional decision and my duplicate was not, so I have intense memories
that he
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
we know that nobody can answer the question why do I feel to be the one
in Washington and not in Moscow.
Because your eyes are sending signals to your brain of the White House and
not of the Kremlin, and there is nothing more
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
People don't have to prove that they aren't machines.
So says you, but a computer might have a very different opinion on the
subject, and I don't think you even have a clear understanding what a
machine is.
it explains why
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We now know that computing or thinking is physical,
We don't know that.
We know that as well as we know anything about physics.
We deduce that in the Aristotelian's theories.
I have no idea what if anything that means.
it
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We know that as well as we know anything about physics
This is not valid.
NOT A VALID POINT?!
A priori we can be dreaming in some world based on a different physics.
Or, as with comp we might belong only to
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
John Clark should get a kick out of this:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/
In computer science, we deal all the time with processes that are
neither deterministic nor random.
BULLSHIT!
An example is a nondeterministic
no longer exists
to write stuff in his diary.
The question is about your first person experience. [...]The question is
not about you, but about the most probable result of an experiment that you
can do. You push on a button, and you localize your directly accessible
body.
Your? You? John Clark
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
let's presume that in 999 out of 1,000 almost identical standard models
that exist in string theory, the half-life is 1 us. But in 1 out of those
1,000, the half life is 10 us. If you are the experimenter what can physics
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
He believes he still exist, because he believes, or assumed, comp.
People believe they exist and in real life they don't have or need a reason
for doing so. And I no longer know what comp means.
Comp is that we can survive with a
was 100%. For some reason you believed my prediction
was wrong.
If you want John Clark to make other predictions about what the Helsinki
man will write in the Helsinki man's diary under various circumstances John
Clark will do so, but because this involves personal identity for clarity
please don't
Rodger, why do you believe that religious truth is truth at all, much
less the highest truth? It's because most small children are genetically
hard wired to unquestionably believe most of what adults tell them and to
carry that belief until the day they die; that's why religious belief has a
very
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But you know in davance that whatever happen, you will live only one
thing.
John Clark knows with certainty that John Clark will see Washington, and
John Clark knows with certainty that John Clark will see Moscow, and John
Clark knows
on my part and so I will say nothing
about it.
You can only say that [...]
You? John Clark has been duplicated so who can only say that, me or that
fellow to my right who looks just like me?
You? John Clark has been duplicated so who can only say that, me or that
fellow to my left who looks just
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
The finding implies that free will is illusory.
Free will is not illusionary. A illusion is a perfectly respectable
subjective phenomena, but free will is not respectable, free will is just
gibberish.
John K Clark
--
You
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Define John Clark.
Define define.
the semantic of proper name is the most difficult unsolved problem in
philosophy.
No it is not, the meaning of pronouns like I and He and you where it
is not even known what proper name
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
After the duplication all the John Clark realise that they are in only
one city,
And that is exactly what John Clark predicted would happen.
And John Clark is correct on this.
But that was not yet the question asked, which
man is destroyed.
This contradicts the time you agreed that one can survive via duplication.
But it's Bruno's thought experiment and Bruno is the one who said the
Helsinki man is no more, John Clark is just trying to figure out who the
hell you is. When Bruno says the Helsinki man is destroyed
not express the ideas that
Bruno Marchal wants to express without using pronouns, and that tells John
Clark something about the nature of Bruno Marchal's ideas.
Yes. And so, both Bruno Marchal will say that they were unable to be sure
in advance which of of being in only M (resp W) they could happen
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:48 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Is this controversial?
Calling it indeterminate when one thing divides and becomes two because
there are now two things and not one is very controversial, especially if
it's supposed to be so deep and profound that it
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp universe?
If numbers exist then so does geometry, that is to say numbers can be made
to change in ways that exactly corresponds with the way objects move
, and john Clark.
First define define.
The 3-I is well known to be definable by the Dx = xx trick,
I have to inform you that the Dx = xx trick is NOT well known to me and
I don't know what you're talking about.
So what's the problem?
To evaluate your chance, in helsinki, to later feel
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If numbers exist then so does geometry, that is to say numbers can be
made to change in ways that exactly corresponds with the way objects move
and rotate in space.
I'm saying that there would be no such thing as objects,
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Consciousness = life = intelligence.
Therefore oak trees are intelligent and conscious.
In addition, intelligence requires free will
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence free will means.
John K Clark
--
You received
memory of the past in the future means
or who its refers to but I can predict that in the future there will be 2
people who call themselves John Clark and BOTH of them will remember being
me, the Helsinki man of right now. I can also predict that one of those
people will feel like he's
the Helsinki person, and after the
duplication, it concerns all the copies. As the diary has been duplicated
too in the two places, it will contain W, or it will contain M, from all
possible subject being interrogated.
And if John Clark had been the Helsinki man you would find that his diary
there is only one that I know for a fact actually does feel, and it
goes by the name of John Clark. My hunch is that other biological systems
can feel too, my hunch is that being biological is not necessary for that
to happen but I don't know it for a fact.
while no inorganic lever system seems to aspire
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
As for what the Helsinki Man imagines will happen to him after he
pushes that button I really don't care because that depends entirely on the
particular personal beliefs of the man involved.
That is non sense.
If
be surprised to
find out that you were correct.
You keep looking at this backward and trying to establish a chain of
identity from the present to the future but that's never going to work,
you've got to look from the present to the past. I know for certain that I
am the John Clark of yesterday
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can
think of.
There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that geometry
can describe numbers. What more do you need?
So the fact that
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Leibniz thought that everything needs a sufficient reason to exist as it
does.
And we now know that Leibniz was DEAD WRONG about that, we now know that
some things happen for no reason whatsoever. And in general that's
identity works about as well as
pushing on a string. you've got to use memory and look from the present to
the past, give it a try, try pulling that string.
And I know nothing for certain about the John Clark of tomorrow, I
don't even know if he will exist.
Keep in mind the theoretical
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You mean the Helsinki guy.
OK, so if you are the Helsinki guy and the Helsinki guy is the guy who is
still experiencing Helsinki then the answer to the question what city will
you see when you push that button? is no city at all.
Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can
think of.
There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that
geometry can describe numbers. What more do you need?
A reason that there could possibly be a
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I would never claim there is no relationship between numbers and
geometry, I claim that there is no function which geometry serves for
arithmetic.
Pythagoras discovered and proved his famous theorem using geometry, only
later
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John Clark keeps saying that after the duplication John Clark will be in
both places.
Not from its personal subjective view (1p).
Pronouns are Bruno Marchal's crutch and now it joins the pantheon.
Where
see how it matters, at
least not now at our current state of ignorance. Nobody knows how many
observers are possible, and even if we did nobody knows how many of those
possible observers actually exist. I do know that in a thought experiment
where lots of exact and near exact copies of John Clark
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But according to computationalism your conscious moment is attached to
some computer program, and computer programs progress until they halt.
And a computer program is constantly changing so consciousness is
constantly
to
identify with something.
And I don't see how you can identify with something you don't know anything
about. I know for a fact that a memory of John Clark of yesterday exists,
but as for John Clark of tomorrow, I can hope but I don't even know that he
will exist. I maintain that nobody feels
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But strictly speaking they cannot be identical. For example it is
statistically certain that they will be thinking different thoughts as they
revive from the transport.
I don't know what statistics you're referring to but
is on which different brain (the one in W after the box is
open, versus the one in M) you will feel to own.
Both answers can be confirmed by people who remember being the Helsinki
man; John Clark doesn't know how that relates to you and Bruno Marchal
doesn't know either, if Bruno Marchal did know
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
it's not a question of keeping their brains syncronized. They will
*never* be in syncrony.
Never is a long time. And two atomic clocks can run in synchrony even
though they are sensitive to far far astronomically far thinner slices of
, the 3-yous multiplies,
and the 1-you mutliply too, in the 3-views, but not from any of each
possible 1-views. So from the 1-views, it is like a sequence of random
event,
Bruno Marchal says John Clark is confusing in the use of the pronoun you
and then give us the above incredible stew of mashed
is
experiencing Helsinki anymore then there is no Helsinki man anymore; but of
course that's no problem to the former Helsinki man, he's doing fine in
Washington AND Moscow.
This contradicts what you say above. We have agree that the Helsinky man
survive in both M and W
John Clark can't agree
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The experiment requires that you place yourself in the place of someone
about to be duplicated and ask yourself what you expect to experience after
that duplication.
Various people expect all sorts of screwy things,
. 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
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Physics is deterministic,
I said it before I'll say it again, it's astonishing how many people expect
to make deep philosophical discoveries while remaining totally ignorant
about what science has accomplished since the year 1900,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, if Everett is correct then the photon hit every point on that
photographic plate, but for every point on the plate there is also a John
Clark who, after developing the plate, sees that the photon hit that
particular point
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the
same thing would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a
brick wall instead of film, because the important thing is not that the
photon
Marchal about that, Bruno Marchal should just ask
me and that will prove that John Clark was correct.
and don't give me this first party third party crap, ANYBODY that exists
after that button is pushed sees BOTH of them as Bruno Marchal from the
first, second third or any other point of view
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:26 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's where you're wrong; read the paper more carefully. If you record
the which-way the interference is lost. [...] The interference pattern
occurs *only* if the which way information is *erased*
Nope, you've got it
1 - 100 of 6395 matches
Mail list logo
