On Friday, November 2, 2012 10:07:36 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
> > wrote:
> > let's presume that in 999 out of 1,000 almost identical standard
>> models that exist in string theory, the half-life is 1 us. But in 1 out of
>> those 1,000, the half life is 10 us. If you are the experimenter what can
>> physics tell you about the particle's half life?
> That it's half life is really 1.01 not 1.
I'm not sure about this. I think after making a few of these measurements,
the experimenter will partition themselves into two different sets of
universes, one where the particle is consistently measured with 1 and
another with 10. After which it is not likely for them
to re-intersect with the other universes where it actually is the other
(Perhaps an already random process like half life was not a good example,
let's say it was the particle's rest mass.)
> > Until the experiment is performed, even the laws of physics are not in
> And in Bruno's thought experiment until the subjects open the door of the
> duplicating machine and observe the different environments of Washington
> and Moscow and thus are changed differently there is still only one
> consciousness regardless of how many bodies there are.
> > This is a main point of Bruno's result:
> Bruno's main point is that we should be amazed and draw deep philosophical
> conclusions from the fact that the Washington man is the man who saw
> Washington, and be flabbergasted by the fact that he didn't become the
> Moscow man because he didn't see Moscow. I'm sorry but I just don't see any
> grand mystery here.
No, that is only a step in the proof. If you had spent the 30 minutes to
read all the steps, you would see the conclusion is that the apparent laws
of physics are determined by math (assuming arithmetical realism and the
computational theory of mind).
> > physics is not at the bottom of the explanatory ladder
> Physics is at the bottom of all non-mathematical things that have an
Physics isn't at the bottom if it is explained by a more fundamental
concept. (Conscious machines and their existence in mathematics)
> but we now know that some things have no explanation. We now know that
> some things are random.
Yes, but only from a first person perspective.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
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