On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:


> > you agreed that the W and M experience are exclusive, making the 1-view
> unique from the 1-view point.
>

 Everybody has a unique viewpoint looking back into the past, nobody has a
unique viewpoint looking to the future.

> you have to disbelieve comp.
>

OK, you know more about your homemade word that I do so I defer to your
greater expertise, I don't believe in this thing called "comp".

>> it just means that if you define "the Helsinki Man" as the man who's
>> experiencing Helsinki and after the button is pressed nobody is
>> experiencing Helsinki anymore then there is no Helsinki man anymore; but of
>> course that's no problem to the former Helsinki man, he's doing fine in
>> Washington AND Moscow.
>>
>
> > This contradicts what you say above. We have agree that the Helsinky man
> survive in both M and W
>

John Clark can't agree with anything about "the Helsinki man" until John
Clark knows what "the Helsinki man" means. If "the Helsinki man" is defined
as "the man that is currently experiencing Helsinki" then nobody fits that
description after the button is pushed.  If "the Helsinki man" is "anyone
who remembers being in Helsinki before the button is pushed" then 2 people
fit that description.

This shows that Bruno Marchal is being incredibly sloppy not just with
pronouns but with noun phrases too, John Clark doesn't understand how Bruno
Marchal expects to construct a precise mathematical proof with that sort of
ambiguity.

>>>> OK Bruno, the experiment is long over and now that you have all the
>>>> information you will ever have on the matter what would have been the
>>>> correct prediction back in Helsinki, W or M? I'm not asking for a
>>>> prediction, the experiment is now in the past so interview anybody and
>>>> everybody and tell me  did "you" see W or M? Bruno Marchal insists there is
>>>> one unique answer so let's hear it!
>>>>
>>>
>>> >>>  they all agree with "W or M", ad they all live W, or M.
>>>
>>
>> >> Well which is it?
>>
>
> > One of them.
>

  Well which is it?

>> The experiment is over and it's time to find out, did it turn out to be
>> W or M? It's silly to assign a 50-50 probability, or any other probability
>> (except 100% or 0%) AFTER something has happened.
>>
>
> > This is done before. But we can confirm or refute it after.
>

OK, you predicted it would turn out to be W or M but not both, so to
confirm your prediction and claim victory all you have to do is tell me how
the experiment turned out, was it W or M?

>> If you send a photon toward 2 slits quantum mechanics can give you
>> probabilities about where the photon will hit a photographic plate, but
>> that's all. it can't give you certainty. However once the experiment is
>> over you can tell where it hit the plate with no doubt whatsoever
>>
>
> > Suppose that you and me enter the same duplication box simultaneously. I
> can also describe the probability on which city we will both see, like with
> P(W) = P(M) = 1/2, and after the duplication, we open the door and we both
> can agree if we see W, or if we see M.


So which was it W or M?

> It is the same with the quantum was without collapse.
>

It's not the same at all! If I send a bunch of photons at 2 slits I can use
quantum mechanics to predict that 90% of them will hit in that area of the
photographic plate and 10% in that other area, and after the experiment is
over we can see if my prediction was correct by developing the plate and
counting the photons. But I can also send one and only one photon toward
the slits and I can still have a pretty good idea about what area it will
probably hit, if you bet me it would hit in the 10% area I'd take that bet
because there is a 90% probability I'll double my money and only a 10%
chance I'll loose it. However I'd take no bets with you on your thought
experiment because you've made it clear you'd renege on the bet, even
though you predicted it would be W or M but not both and even though AFTER
the experiment you still could not say which one you'd still refuse to pay
up.

>>and you don't need abstruse philosophy or advanced equations to do it,
>> you just develop the photographic plate. This experiment is over too and
>> Bruno Marchal predicted there would be one and only one answer, either W or
>> M.
>>
>
> > Like the photon will hit the screen here or there, despite the wave does
> not. Even after the measurement is done, in the QM without collapse.
>

Before QM says the photon will hit here or there but AFTER the experiment
you know with 100% certainty that the photon hit the photographic plate
here and not there, and so we can test theories. In your thought experiment
you used your theory and said it would be W or M but not both, AFTER the
experiment you claim that all you can still say is W or M, so you really
haven't made a prediction at all, thus we can conclude that it's a bad
theory or a bad thought experiment or both.

> When we open the door of the reconstitution box, the measurement gives
> unambiguously a definite outcome.
>

Then I ask yet again, was the unambiguous definite outcome W or M?

> You confuse the result of the measurement (which can only be W  or only M
>

So which one was it W or M?

> Same with the two slits: QM describes the two different outcomes of the
> measurement
>

Yes QM predicts the photon will hit here or there with a certain
probability, but afterward the measurement produces only one outcome, as
can be seen when we develop the photographic plate and see only one point
not two, its a point right there plain as day with no doubt whatsoever.
Your theory predicts "or", it says there will be one and only one result so
all I want to know is what that result is, was the outcome of the
measurement, W or M?

> we can derive experimental probabilities from frequencies of events.
>

OK, then tell me how you score this thing, how do you do the counting?
After just one event I would put check marks next to both W AND M, but you
disagree and say it's W OR M, so I ask again, after one event do you put
check marks next to W or M?

> so now that its over I want to know the results, was it Washington or was
>> it Moscow?
>>
>
> > See just above.
>

I don't want to see above and I don't want more philosophy I just want to
know the results of a experiment, you said it would be W or M so I want to
know which one it turned out to be.

  John K Clark






>
>
>
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to