On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:09 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On 11/7/2012 1:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:07 AM, John Clark<johnkcl...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Jason Resch<jasonre...@gmail.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>  If you are the experimenter what can physics tell you about the
>>>>> particle's half life?  It is not implied by the laws of physics because
>>>>> there are many laws of physics.  Until the experiment is performed, even
>>>>> the laws of physics are not in stone.  This is a main point of Bruno's
>>>>> result: physics is not at the bottom of the explanatory ladder, the laws 
>>>>> of
>>>>> physics depend on the distribution of observers similar to your current
>>>>> state of mind throughout its infinite manifestations in reality.
>>> Physics is at the bottom of all non-mathematical things that have an
>>> explanation, but we now know that some things have no explanation. We now
>>> know that some things are random.
>> Here you accept there is inherent randomness.
>> Where do you think this randomness comes from?
>> Do you think it is an objective feature of reality or only an illusion
>> for observers?
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, John Clark<johnkcl...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012  Bruno Marchal<marc...@ulb.ac.be>  wrote:
>>>  I don't see this at all. After the duplication all the John Clark
>>>>> realise that they are in only one city, and that they were unable to
>>>>> predict which one. So both of them understand that this peculiar 
>>>>> experience
>>>>> was not predicable.
>>> Wrong! John Clark correctly predicted that the Moscow man would see
>>> Moscow and the Washington man would see Moscow. John Clark doesn't
>>> understand what more should be expected of a prediction;
>> If you have ever played a game like poker, you would see predictions
>> all the time of the form: there is X% chance you experience winning
>> the the pot and (1-X)% chance you experience losing or sharing the
>> pot.  You won't play the game very well if you operate under the
>> theory that there is a 100% chance that you will experience winning,
>> losing, and sharing the pot (as some of your duplicates in the
>> multiverse inevitably do).
> But it's hard to see what 1/pi of a duplicate would be.

I am not sure I understand what you mean.  Where do you get 1/Pi from?
What is your point?


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