On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> "I" (first person) is rather easy, in that situation. If you agree that
> there is no problem surviving the drinking coffee experience, you have
> already grasp it.
I agree that drinking a cup a coffee changes me but in my opinion I still
survive, drinking a cup of cyanide would change me even more than the
coffee did and it would change me so much that in my opinion I would not
survive; however this is all a matter of degree not of kind. This does not
mean there can not be a huge difference between the two, there is no sharp
dividing line between day and night either but the difference between the
two is as big as, well , day and night.
> Arithmetic is about me, my consciousness, my body, the matter which seems
> to constitute me, all apparent matter, the laws of physics. Comp makes
> arithmetic a theory of consciousness including matter's appearance, without
> ontological matter.
Do you think the moon exists when you are not looking at it? If your answer
is "yes" then comp is not a theory of everything.
> It is not "if you change then you are not the same", It is "if you do
> that experience, what is the probability you feel to get this or that result
The probability is 100% that if you receive sights and sounds from Moscow
and not Washington you will become the Moscow man and not the Washington
> when assuming comp so that you agree already that the probability of
> surviving with a digital brain is 1, despite the big change.
And that's another problem if you're trying to construct a rigorous proof
as you are; there is no clear procedure for determining if a change is so
large it is incompatible with survival. Most may agree at the extreme ends
of the spectrum just as we agree that a 80 pound man is thin and a 800
pound man is fat, but exactly where a thin man turns into a fat man is a
matter of opinion. In the real world nature rarely draws a sharp line
between things, she draws a grey blob.
> So you do agree with the first person indeterminacy.
I neither agree nor disagree, the concept is not well formed.
> as a logician, and in the fundamental matter, it remains important to
> understand that we, the comp people, does not know the truth of comp.
I agree, comp can never be proved or disproved so there is no point in
worrying about it. I just assume it's true because I could not function
otherwise and it gives me time to think about other things; as I said comp
> By using the word God, we show respect to our predecessor
But that's another problem, you're giving the word "God" and the people who
think the word is sacred far more respect than they deserve.
> Unlike Everett QM, we must justifies BOTH the Born rule AND the SWE,
If somebody could derive either of those things starting from nothing but
pure numbers and prove that nothing else would be logically consistent it
would be the greatest discovery in the history of science, but
unfortunately I don't see anything like that happening very soon.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at