On 07 Nov 2009, at 01:04, m.a. wrote:

> Bruno,
>               Good to see you back! I have a question with reference  
> to the experiment described in the first person indeterminacy paper.  
> If, before the teleportation, the omniscient authority tells the  
> subject that he will find a zero in his envelope, both subjects will  
> expect to find a zero after the procedure, no? The subject who finds  
> the 1, must inevitably conclude that he is in fact a duplicate since  
> he trusts the OA implicitly and reasons that if he were the original  
> (real) subject, he would be seeing a zero. Where is the flaw in my  
> logic?        marty a.

The subject of the experience believe in comp, and knows the protocol  
of the experience. So he knows the "original" will be destroyed or  
annihilated after the scanning procedure. He know in advance that both  
subject are duplicate, and so "I am the duplicate" does not make sense.

Even if he decides to trust the OA, and then to abandon comp if he is  
in front of the "one" in the envelop, he will feel as being the  
original person (we still assume comp), with the memory that the OA  
told him that he will find "zero", which will make him rightly say  
"for me right now the OA was wrong, whatever I am".

The experience here was symmetrical. From the first person perspective  
it makes no sense at all to say "I am the duplicate". We know, and he  
knows, and the OA knows, in advance, that they are both "duplicate".


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruno Marchal
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 11:45 AM
> Subject: Re: request for glossary + announcement that the seventh  
> step series thread will soon be resumed
> Hi all,
> Welcome to fcy
> "Universal Dance Association" is quite cute :) A universal dance  
> could be a Universal Dovetailer if "digital dance" could make sense.
> UDA (in this list) is for Universal Dovetailer Argument. You should  
> google on this term, on the net or on the everything-list archive.  
> You may look here also for references:
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/web/auda
> A universal dovetailer is a program which generates and execute all  
> possible programs. It is a mathematical object and its existence  
> follows from the Post-Church-Turing thesis.
> The universal dovetailer argument  is an argument which shows that  
> the mechanist hypothesis leads to a notion of strong first person  
> indeterminacy, and that eventually the laws of both physics and  
> psychology/theology (quanta and qualia) have to be derived from  
> "pure" number theory/computer science.
> If I succeed to explain UDA sufficiently well, I will be able to  
> give some account of AUDA which is far more sophisticated, and  
> useful only to get already quantitative physical information from  
> numbers/computer science (as opposed to UDA which "just" show that  
> physics has to be given by a first person measure on the  
> computations occurring in the universal dovetailing).
> ----
> Elsevier has asked me to write some topics on its SciTopics. You may  
> take a look at
> http://www.scitopics.com/The_first_person_computationalist_indeterminacy.html
> http://www.scitopics.com/Godel_Mind_and_Machine.html
> Comments are welcomed.
>  I let you know that I will have some more time for now (October was  
> very heavy!). So it is time to ask questions for the thread "the  
> seven step series" (which is about the seventh step of the UDA)  
> before I proceed. I will make a little sum up next week. There has  
> been more than five versions of UDA already send to the list, but I  
> am not sure everyone understand, so please ask questions. All  
> questions are allowed on this non moderate list, so feel free, to  
> ask anything (related) to the everything-like approach in the search  
> of a "TOE" (Theory of everything-including-consciousness-and-person  
> (as opposed to the TOE of the physicians which search to unify only  
> what is observable and third person describable).
> Marty, Kim, are you still there? Have you a problem with Cantor  
> diagonal proof of the non enumerability of the set of functions from  
> N to N (N^N)? Or do you prefer I explain this again in the sum up?
> On 05 Nov 2009, at 06:03, fcy wrote:
>> As a newcomer to this group, there are many things I'm unable to
>> follow, in detail, due to unfamiliarity with many of the acronyms.
>> For instance, googling UDA turns up links related to the Ulster
>> Defense Association, the Universal Dance Association, Urban Design
>> Associates, and the United Dairymen of Arizona, none of which seem to
>> be what's being discussed here.
>> Thanks in advance,
>> fcy
> 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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to