On 23 Mar 2012, at 22:14, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> You are still avoiding the WM duplication.
There is no spliting in Many Worlds unless something is different,
if 2 universes are identical then they have merged and there is now
only one universe.
I can accept that, and that is why I often said "splitting/
differentiation". I use in comp, to make the notion of the comp-
measure more intuitive, the Y = II rule, which means that a
bifurcation in the future backtrack on the past.
>> the copy and the original agree on what occurred, so according to
you the first person perspective, the one that both you and I
believe is most important, is identical; so there is only one
perspective, one consciousness.
> Sure. This does not invalidate the point I am making. It does not
address the point at all.
Then what the hell IS the point you are making?
That comp entails 1-indeterminacy. 5 I mean that's the pont of the
step 3). The point of the whole UDA is to understand that physics is a
branch of arithmetic/computer science.
> In the thought experiment I am using, the content of the diaries
are equal up to some pages, and then they diverge.
And when the diaries diverge the person will too and become 2, both
are the original person and neither is each other.
Correct. That is part of the explanation of the comp indeterminacy.
> The experiencer tries to predict which branch they will live.
If the experiencer believes that when something is duplicated it
remains singular then any prediction made regarding it will be
Others and myself have answered this many times.
> You continue to avoid the points.
It's rather easy to avoid your points as you have NOT mentioned a
single one, you just tell me to follow these wonderful but phantom
Each step in the UDA has a precise point. You fail to say what is your
problem with them.
>Like Brent said, the difference is between annihilation and no
reconstitution (= dying), and annihilation + reconstitution (=
teleportation, or duplication, etc.).
The fact of the matter is that the Bruno Marchal of noon yesterday
has not been duplicated or teleported or reconstituted, the Bruno
Marchal of right now remembers being him but he is different and has
memories that other version did not have; so if you insist that the
Helsinki man is dead
Not only I don't insist on that, but I have never asserted it.
then to be consistent you must say that Bruno Marchal of noon
yesterday is dead, and if you insist that the Helsinki man has been
annihilated then to be consistent you must say that Bruno Marchal of
noon yesterday has been annihilated. Are you certain you really want
to do this?
There is a sense for the guy in W to say that he has been annihilated
in Helsinki and reconstituted in W.
> Please, answer my post of the 19 mars,
I don't know what 19 mars is and I thought I'd responded to all your
posts but if I missed one where you made everything clear (I'm not
holding my breath) then please resend it.
See below, you have fail to answer more than four posts.
>Things are rather simple.
Yes, but not simple in a good way.
> You pretend that there is no 1-indeterminacy.
I insist that indeterminacy exists in every one of the many thought
experiments proposed by members of this list during the last month,
but you pretend to have discovered a brand new form of it never
known before. I see no evidence you have done anything of the sort.
As you said yourself the 1-indeterminacy which accompanies the
classical self-duplication is the building block of the whole UDA. You
said it was nonsense. It looks you grasp it now, although it is not
clear that you have seen how different it is from all other form of
indeterminacy known before. But if you grasp the 1-indeterminacy, you
grasp step 3, and so tell me what you think about step 4 (in sane04).
> Then you have to explain to us how you predict the movie that you
will remember having seen when the movie-multiplication experience
Bruno Marchal has asked this many times but despite many requests
for clarification of who "you" is such a explanation, that would
establish a new sort indeterminacy, has not been received.
It is enough to interview each copies, they understand automatically
what we mean by "you". You are the only one having a problem with
this. You seem to be negative and dismissive for no reason.
> and you seem to accept that 1-indeterminacy in some post, and then
just dismiss it as trivial.
I accept "1-indeterminacy" because as described by you it is
identical to the indeterminacy in physics and mathematics that we've
known about for a very long time,
It might be phenomenologically identical with other indeterminacy, but
it has a simpler explanation which does not involve neither QM, nor
Gödel or Turing, nor chaos and other computer 3-unpredictability.
Hofstader and Dennett's Mind'I get close to it but miss it.
But let us not be distracted by such priority question. If you grasp
the 1-indeterminacy, move to the step 4.
and I dismiss it as trivial for exactly the same reason. I want
Well: it is new. And still ignored by most scientist, despite the peer
reviews, the PhD thesis and the early publications. But it is
criticized by some (influent) continental philosophers, and I don't
know why, because they have never accepted public or private talks.
But even if it was not original, which it is, if you grasp it now,
then move to step 4. You will see that comp entails that physics is
necessarily a branch of arithmetic, that physicalism is necessarily
wrong, and eventually that we have to replace Aristotelianism (the
religion of the atheists and many Christians) by Platonism (the idea
that the physical reality is not primitive, but an aspect of something
Just tell me if you agree with step 4, as explained in sane04.
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