On 29 Mar 2012, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/29/2012 10:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED.
I will ask you to do the "hairsplitting" about that "YOU", that you
are using here, so as to convince me and others that it refutes
indeed the indeterminacy about the first person experience
displayed in the WM duplication thought experience (UDA step 3).
Given that we both agree that we don't die in that experience, and
given that you are the one claiming that there is no indeterminate
outcome, I will ask to give us an algorithm predicting the result
of the future self-localization experience.
The outcome is deterministic just like Everett's QM is
deterministic. And it has the same problems being given a
probabilistic interpretation as EQM. If you duplicated a coin in
the transporter experiment the question, "Where will you expect to
find the coin." has the same problems as "Where do you expect to
find yourself". The implication is that "self" is not a unique
'thing' (as for example a soul is assumed to be) but is process that
can be realized in different media.
I agree. But the experience is lived as unique, so we can follow
Plotinus in using the term soul for the owner of the 1-view, that is,
the knower. From its pov, it is not duplicable, in the trivial sense
that the duplication is never part of his experience. He would not
know if we did not give him the protocol.
mathematically, this is related to the fact that no machine can know
which machine she is, already seen clearly by Post and (re)intuited by
Benacerraf, and "intuited" by the machine itself, accepting the
Theaetetus' definition of knowledge.
I am not sure the problem of probability is identical in QM and COMP.
In QM, Everett showed that the P = A^2 principle does not depend on
the choice of the base, so that A can be considered as measuring the
relative proportion of possible accessible relative realities. This
does not work with finite multiverse, but it works with infinite
multiverse, and Gleason theorem justifies the unicity of the measure,
for sufficiently complex physical reality (meaning the Hilbert space
have to be of dimension bigger than 2. So in my opinion, the Born rule
is already explained.
With COMP, as I argue, we have to justify the wave itself (assuming QM
is correct) from the relative number relations and personal points of
view (as done in AUDA, for the logic of "measure one").
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at