On 25 Jun 2012, at 21:01, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> The question is do you agree with it, or not. So that we can move
to step 4.
I've lost track, is step 3 the trivial observation that sometimes we
don't know what we're going to do, or was that step 2?
Step 2 is that the diary of the one teleported does not mention the
delays of reconstitution in absence of third person clue.
Step 3, is that no machine can predict the content of its personal
future diaries content in self-multiplication experience.
Step 4 is a mix of step 2 and 3, and makes the observation that if
P(W) P(M) = 1/2, say, in the WM-duplication experience, then P(W) =
P(M) = 1/2 in the same experience except that an asymmetrical delay of
reconstitution has been introduced.
> You ignore that we can test inequalities, even without
probability. I do produce the description of the devices so that we
can test the hypotheses.
Then tell me of an experiment that a scientist can perform in a lab
where if X>Y then your theory is wrong but if Y> X then your theory
is probably right, where X and Y are objectively measurable
quantities of some sort; just tell me what X and Y are.
Look at what is observable close enough. Comp predicts that the logic
of those observable will appear as being non boolean. Read the whole
sane04 to see why, and how that is made precise, for the non-
booleanity is quantum, but not yet proved equivalent with the QM
quantum logic.
> but this does not mean that we cannot attach one mind to two
different machines,
Yes provided the machines were identical, or at least functionally
identical.
We agree on this since the start.
> or to two identical (similar at the subst. level) machine put in
different environment,
If they were in different environments then the machines would not
be identical or even functionally identical and their associated
minds would be different because they would have different memories.
By the comp assumption, they can be copied and put in two different
environments, so that they will differentiate, and that is why they
cannot predict their experience, even in a prior state of complete
information of the issuing protocol.
Or you have to put the substitution level in the infinitely down so as
to make us non duplicable, but then we are no more working in the comp
theory.
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.
