2012/3/17 John Clark <[email protected]> > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The experience consists in being duplicated each day, for ten days in a >> row. >> > > Oh dear, Is this really necessary? > > > He is duplicated in two similar rooms, except for a big "1" painted in >> the wall of one of these rooms, and a big "0" painted on the corresponding >> wall in the other rooms >> > > I hope you do realize that if one copy sees a "0" and another copy sees a > "1" then the identical copies are no longer identical and they > differentiate into different people. If that's the point you're trying to > make there is no need for things to be so elaborate. > > > The question which is asked to Arthur, specifically, is to predict if he >> will see a 0, or a 1 on the wall, and if he will get a cup of tea. >> > > I haven't even finished reading this post but already I see a potential > pronoun land mine, the dreaded "he", a word that threatens to render the > entire exercise useless. > > > I duplicate him in the two rooms, and then I wake up and interview them, >> but separately, and this each day, reiterating the duplication for all the >> resulting copies. Obviously I will have a lot of work the tenth day, >> because I will have to interview 1024 copies, or more simply to review 1024 >> diaries, >> > > I can't help but think that adding this ridiculous complication was done > to hide, perhaps even from yourself, that all that is going on here is that > there is no way for poor old Arthur to make a prediction if he will see a 0 > or a 1 that is better than the laws of probability. In other words ALL the > different Arthurs (and they are all different because they all saw > different things) can only guess if they will see a 0 or a 1. What is new > here? > > > A-110 "Hmm... perhaps "010101?" >> A-111 "No idea what the hell is going on" >> > > I'll tell you exactly what the hell is going on, different people see > different things. Is this really a revolutionary discovery? > > > > Arthur try to predict his 1-stories, >> > > And in general Turing Machines like Arthur can not predict their > 1-stories, they don't know if they will stop until they do. I ask again > what is new here? > > > > Note that you don't even need to attribute consciousness to Arthur. >> > > Obviously, no experiment can directly observe consciousness. > > > > I can't say it more easily and clearly: the 1-person indeterminacy is > the inability to predict the content of the personal diary > > Well I can say it more easily and clearly, 1-person indeterminacy is > indeterminacy period. >
No... don't you see that in MWI (or comp) context, the SWE is determinist and indeterminacy is on the observer ? 3 POV determinist (SWE) 1 POV indeterminate (===> measure problem). Quentin > And actually, "the inability to predict the content of the personal diary" > is not only a trait we share with Turing Machines it is the only definition > of "free will" (other than a sound made by the mouth) that is not circular > gibberish. > > 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
