2012/3/17 John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>

> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to