On 29 Nov 2012, at 23:00, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> 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".

> From your reply to Craig, I think that you do. Unless you have change your mind.

I haven't changed my mind on this matter recently and until one year ago and I joined this list I had never heard of "comp", so I defer to your greater expertise on the meaning of your homemade word. It now appears that I do believe in this thing called "comp".

I have always insisted that comp is just an abbreviation for computationalism in the cognitive science. It is the idea that the brain is a machine, and that if you emulate it at some enough low level on a computer, my subjective experience remains unchanged.





>> 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?

> OK. My prediction is "W or M but not both". In that case both confirms.

The prediction was not confirmed because after the experiment was over nobody said "I saw W or M".

?

Both can confirm that they saw "W or M".

"P v Q" is true if P is true.
"P v Q" is true if Q is true.





And anyway only one of them is of interest because only one of them is "you" according to Bruno Marchal,

No. They are both me. But from the 1-person view, I can only experience being one of them. But in the 3p view, they are both me (which leads to the idea that we are both the "initial amoeba", but that's another topic).



otherwise the question "which ONE did you see?" would be nonsense, it's as if I had 2 apple pies and I asked "which ONE is a apple pie?". You predicted W or M but not both, so which did it turn out to be?

W but for the "me" opening the door in W,
and
M for the "me" opening the door in M.

Both confirms "W or M". None confirms your "W & M". Given that the question is on the first person view.





  >> So which was it W or M?

> W for the W-couples, and M for the M couples.

I was pleased to note that you said "and" not "or".

I say it since the beginning as we describe here the 3-view on the 1- view. I am pelased you see that both describe only one city, and this confirmed the 1-indeterminacy.





>> 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,

> before, in Helsinki you have probability, but after pushing on the button, then, in all circumstances you see a definite result

In the two slit experiment the definite result was the that photon hit the photographic plate right there and not over there and no probability or theory was used or needed, all that was needed was a darkroom to develop the plate. So what was the definite result of your experiment, W or M?


W but for the "me" opening the door in W,
and
M for the "me" opening the door in M.

This entails "W or M" for both.
This refuted "W and M" for both. Given that "W" and "M" refer to the 1- views.




>before, in Helsinki you have probability, but after pushing on the button, then, in all circumstances you see a definite result

AND I'M ASKING WHAT IT WAS, W OR M!!!!

W but for the "me" opening the door in W,
and
M for the "me" opening the door in M.

Again:

This entails "W or M" for both.
This refuted "W and M" for both. Given that "W" and "M" refer to the 1- views.





>> 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,

> In your imagination only. All the copies can say where they are after the experience. You attribute me statements that I have never said.

John Clark is not interested in "all the copies" John Clark is only interested in "you", Bruno Marchal predicted that "you" will only see ONE city so which ONE was "you"? Was "you" in W or was "you" in M?

You have to take into account all copies, to get the statistics right, exactly like in QM without collapse.




It's OK to say "or" in making a prediction but not in reporting a experimental result.

Read the answer that I have repeated above.






> You can test the probability, by iterating the experience,

Tell me how to do this. How do you do the counting? You say that after each iteration you can put a mark next to W or M but not both, so tell me where to put the mark.

Once you are duplicated, I have to interview all the copies, of course. the point is that they give all a definite city, and none could have predicted them. So the H-guy knows with certainty that he cannot predict where he will find himself after pushing the button.

It is hard for me to see if you have a genuine misunderstanding, or if you just play words. Frankly.





>>> 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?

> The point is that it can only be one of them, for both subject. So it was W for one of them, and M for the other. The question bears on the first person experience,

Then John Clark asks yet again, which one is "you"? Forget about prediction, after it's all over from the first person experience which city did "you" end up seeing, W or M?

In the 3-view, both.
In the 1-views, W for the W-man, and M for the M-man. Obviously when I am in Helsinki I cannot be sure which of M and W I will feel myself in.





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

>So which one was it W or M?

W for one half of the copies, and W for the other halves.

Yes obviously, but Bruno Marchal insisted that "you" will see W or M but not both,

Note that you have already agree on this.



so which one turned out to be "you", the one that saw W or the one that saw M?

In the 3-view they are both me. In the 1-view, after the experiment is done, whoever I have become can only be one of them, from the 1-view view. That is why I have to be indeterminate before.



"You" can't be both because that's John Clark's position.

It is my position, but I made clear that it is the 3-view.
It entails the "or" from the 1-views.




John Clark understands that Bruno Marchal's theory can't predict which one, but what was the experimental result?

W but for the "me" opening the door in W,
and
M for the "me" opening the door in M.

Again:

This entails "W or M" for both.
This refuted "W and M" for both. Given that "W" and "M" refer to the 1- views.






From the first person point of view which Bruno Marchal likes so very much which one turned out to be "you"?


Both from the 3p view.
And I can't predict which one I will survive through from the 1p, before I push on the button. of course, after both knows which one they are, and that explains the description just above.




>>> 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

> There is no reduction. In Everett QM, there are many photographic plates, containing respectively different John Clark looking at them.

And for each point on the plate there is a John Clark observing that the photon hit that particular spot and no other, so each time the 2 slit experiment is repeated a definite result is found,

By each John Clark which have become numerous, in the 3p view, eaxctly like in the comp case.



the photon hit RIGHT THERE.

For all John Clark. The same with comp: the city I see is right there.




What definite outcome did your experiment produce, W or M?


W but for the "me" opening the door in W,
and
M for the "me" opening the door in M.

Again:

This entails "W or M" for both.
This refuted "W and M" for both. Given that "W" and "M" refer to the 1- views.




>>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?

>> Come on. It is very simple that you have to ask that question to all copies, and that you will have all value. the same happens if you could interview all the John Clark bifurcating on an iterated Schroedingers cat type of measurement.

There are a infinite number of cats in boxes and and infinite number of John Clarks opening the lid of a box and looking inside, and all the John Clarks won't all see the same thing but every one of those John Clarks forms a very solid unambiguous opinion on the health the cat after seeing what's inside that box.

I really fail to see any difference with the comp duplication. Every one of the John Clarks obtained forms a very solid unambiguous opinion on which city they see.






If the Schrodinger cat experiment is repeated many times sometimes the cat will be alive and sometimes it will be dead but each iteration of the experiment produces a unambiguous result. What unambiguous result did you obtain in your experiment, W or M?

W but for the "me" opening the door in W,
and
M for the "me" opening the door in M.

The only difference with QM, is that you can meet your doppel. Note that if QM SWE appears to be, even very slightly non linear, then you might be able to meet your doppel with QM too, illustrating that this point is not relevant for the indeterminacy issue.






>> 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?

> To W, for the experience of seeing W. And M for the experience of seeing M.

So now you agree with me that in counting the outcome of each iteration of the test you should put a mark next to W AND M.

Of course not. The prediction is on the subjective experience, and NONE confirms "W and M". None at all. You are the only person saying this, except Chalmers, but he uses an explicit dualist theory and, at least when we met, agree that it entails telepathic power of a non comp kind. This contradicts some texts he wrote after, and he might have change its mind on this. But without telepathy, you are distinctly in one place, whoever you have became, and so "W and M" is always refuted.

Bruno






  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 .

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.

Reply via email to