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.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to