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 gibberish.

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 points.

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 is completed.

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 something new.

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 else).

Just tell me if you agree with step 4, as explained in sane04.

Bruno


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 
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