On 10 Dec 2012, at 19:54, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From whose perspective is there a single unique result?

From my perspective! Whenever I, the simple non-godlike experimenter, send a photon (or electron) through 2 slits and it hits a photographic I, the simple non-godlike experimenter, always see a single unique result. After the experiment I, the simple non- godlike experimenter, can always say the photon hit right there on the plate and it did not hit way over there on the other side of the plate.

The outcome of the 2 slit experiment cannot be predicted precisely but once it is performed and the experimenter knows for certain if the left hand side of the plate box or the right hand side of the plate box should be checked in the lab notebook. After Bruno's experiment should the Washington or Moscow box be checked? Should the experimenter believe the Washington man or the Moscow man or both? If it's both then the experimenter has learned nothing.

> From the God's-eye view of reality, there certainly is not a single outcome.

Perhaps, but I am not God; I applied but unfortunately did not get the job.

>Your issue is you use the God's-eye view for Bruno's experiment but not for the 2-slit experiment.

No. In Bruno's experiment from my perspective, I the simple non- godlike experimenter, always see exactly the same thing, I the simple non-godlike experimenter always see 2 people who have a equal right to call themselves Bruno always check both the Washington box and the Moscow box and thus nothing is learned. And I don't care what God sees because this simple non-godlike experimenter does not believe in God.

You need only to believe that both the W-man and the M-man have a first person experience. And both confirms that sometimes they see W, sometimes they see M, and never both.




>> it says that in the 2 slit experiment the absolute value of the square of the value of the Schrodinger wave equation of a photon at a point on a photographic plate will be the classical probability of finding the photon at that point when you develop the plate. This prediction of Quantum Mechanics has been proven to be correct many many times and according to SUAC that's the end of the matter.

> But those predicted probabilities are more similar to those of Bruno's first person indeterminacy

No it is not. Quantum Mechanics could have been disproved by actually performing the 2 slit experiment and obtaining a different probability distribution, but as it happens Quantum Mechanics predicted correctly. However there is no way to check Bruno's prediction about which city you will see due to the inconsistency of what "you" means, the experiment produces no result.

> In any case, what Tegmark shows is that when reality gets very big, stuff like QM becomes unavoidable.

It doesn't matter. If our universe is big enough to have a exact copy of me in the way that Tegmark talks about then he is so far away that I can never meet him or detect him in any way, not even if I had a infinite (and I DON'T just mean very large) number of years to do it. Due to the expansion of the universe that other John Clark is already moving much much faster than the speed of light away from me, and due to the acceleration of the universe he is moving away even faster every day.

> If I remember correctly you are a Platonist.

I prefer to think of Plato as being a Clarkist, and I don't understand why people keep saying I have a big head.

> Do you believe there are platonic objects containing patterns complex enough to be conscious?

You can't fly to Tokyo on the blueprints of a 747 they need to be implemented with matter, but matter is generic, one aluminum atom is as good as another so its the information that's important.

>  Had QM not been found, it would be strong evidence against the CTM.

It took me long time to figure out that acronym and I'm still not sure, I considered Computational Turing Machine but that seemed redundant, then with Google's help I thought about Central Texas Mountaineers and Children's Theater of Madison and Classic Tile and Mosaic, now my best guess is Computer Theory of Mind but I could be wrong.

> Say there are 2 computers and both are running the Microsoft Word program. I tell you that I am about to type the word "red" into one computer and the word "green" into the other computer. The two computers are never connected so each computer outputs a single definite result. Do you agree that there is a 100% chance that Microsoft Word will input the word "red" from a keyboard and display those ASCII characters on a screen and a 100% chance that Microsoft Word will input the word "green" from a keyboard and display those ASCII characters on a screen?

> Yes I do.  But that explains things from the God's-eye view.

Unfortunately I am not God but I the simple non-godlike experimenter can say there is a 100% chance that Microsoft Word will input the word "red" from a keyboard and display those ASCII characters on a screen and a 100% chance that Microsoft Word will input the word "green" from a keyboard and display those ASCII characters on a screen.

 > if you consider Word as an intelligent AI,

A bit of a stretch but OK.

> and it exists in the same exact state on both computers before you start typing, then it is one mind in the same state.

Yes.

> Once you type different things into it, that one mind splits into two minds,

Yes.

 > and each observes only a single outcome.

Yes.

> If you explained this to the AI prior to typing either "red" or "green" into it, that single undifferentiated mind could have no better than a 50% chance of predicting whether the next letter it sees entered is "r" or "g". Agree?

No, and in this case it doesn't even depend on what "it" is because nothing and nobody will see 50%. A Microsoft Word program with no input and a Microsoft Word program with the word "red" inputted and a Microsoft Word program with the word "green" inputted are NOT identical programs, but does Jason Resch want to continue to call all three programs Microsoft Word?

If yes then there is a 100% chance that Microsoft Word will input the word "red" from a keyboard and display those ASCII characters on a screen and a 100% chance that Microsoft Word will input the word "green " from a keyboard and display those ASCII characters on a screen. And if the answer is no then there is a 0% chance that Microsoft Word will input the word "red" from a keyboard and display those ASCII characters on a screen and a 0% chance that Microsoft Word will input the word "green " from a keyboard and display those ASCII characters on a screen. It doesn't matter if the answer is yes or no there will never be a 50% chance.

> You seem to not be placing yourself in the shoes of the person being duplicated.

I'll place my feet into any pair of shoes you want but it's mportant to be clear which pair is being referred to.

> Only when you see through the eyes of the W-man or see through the eyes of the M-man do you get the result.

And that's the problem right there, the use of "or" not "and".

> Under MWI, the outcome of the [2 slit] measurement is always exactly the same and completely deterministic and predictable before the experiment is conducted.

And yet you the experimenter and a believer in MWI is unable, even in theory, to make a completely deterministic prediction about what is about to happen.

>> But actually that's not even my main complaint, the main problem always comes back to pronouns. Bruno says 1-p and 3-p should be appended to pronouns and that will clear everything up, but what does a 3-p of a 1-p even mean?

> I don't know.

I don't either, but Bruno keeps talking about it.

Read the definitions I have given many time. It is also in the sane2004 paper. You can quote them and tell me what you don't understand.

Bruno




> You describe the two first person views from a third person view, but the experiment asks you to evaluate the outcome strictly from the first person view.

Who's first person's view are we talking about, I see two people there.

> Just as you evaluate the outcome of measuring the photon from a single branch of the wave function.

That is done simply by developing that photographic plate and there is no equivalent to that in Bruno's experiment. And it doesn't matter if the MWI is true or not, and it doesn't matter if there is a copy of me 10^10^118 meters away, and it is unnecessary to define exactly who I you or he is because no matter what one and only one check mark goes into the lab notebook. In other words after the 2 slit experiment there is always a solid result that could not have been predicted before it was performed, but after Bruno's experiment we're as clueless as we were before we performed it.

> To get the single definite result, you have to place yourself into the shoes of the person being duplicated,

Afterwards there are 2 people so you need to tell me where to put my feet.

>> the question still has those pesky pronouns in it. If "your first person perspective" means "your first person perspective as of right now" then "you" won't see any city at all in the future because the future is not now. Yes down this path leads to madness but that's what happens if you push on a string or try to establish a chain of identity by looking from the present to the future, it only works by looking from the present to the past because I know who I was but I don't know who I will be.

> It's not as complicated as you make it out to be.

It's more than complicated if you insist on trying to establish a chain of personal identity by looking at things from the present to the future, but it's easy to find such a chain by looking from the present to the past. I know the past I don't know the future.

> My argument does not hinge on it, but you seem to understand the QM and the MWI, and you seem to understand how in QM under the MWI, the illusion of single definite result,

It's not a illusion, it doesn't matter if MWI is true or not, in this universe there is not enough information to predict with certainty exactly where the photon will hit the plate. And even if MWI is true and even if John Clark is wrong and God does exist then all God Himself could predict about which Jason Resch will see the photon hit that particular point on the plate right there is that the Jason Resch who sees the photon hit that particular point right there will be the Jason Resch that sees the photon hit that particular point right there. What else does Jason Resch expect God or anybody else to say about it?

  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