On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:25 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes, and there are two of them and so there are 2 "heres" and 2 "not >>> theres". So what ONE and only ONE thing does John Clark the >>> experimenter enter into the lab notebook?? >>> >> >> > You are hopeless. I've answered this at least 10 times. >> > > Avoided the question at least 10 times. Jason #1 says Washington and Jason > #2 says Moscow, there is only one lab notebook and only one experimenter, > so what one and only one check mark should the experimenter put in that one > and only one lab notebook, the one next to the word "Washington" or the one > next to the word "Moscow"? > > >> > Can anyone (the 1 or 2 remaining John Clarks, being the only person (or >> people) left on Earth) say whether he was transported randomly to one of >> the two locations, or duplicated to two different locations? >> > > That depends on how much is known. Subjective probability depends on the > amount of information, or lack of it, the person involved has; and if Many > Worlds is correct then all probabilities are subjective. If you told me > nothing about the machine and just said walk into the chamber and I did so > and found myself in Moscow I would have no way of knowing that there was > another John Clark in Washington, nor would I have any idea why of all the > cities in the world you chose to transport me to Moscow, I would not even > know that a reason existed. > Well say you knew there was a 50% chance it would duplicate you and a 50% chance it would transport you. Are the one or two John Clark's any wiser following this protocol about which it was? If they aren't then subjectively duplication produces an experience indistinguishable from the random selection of a single course. Do you agree? > > > My bet: you will find some excuse for not answering or merely ignore >> this question >> > > You loose. > > > > > as it brings too close to first person indeterminacy for your comfort. >> > > Well of course I'm uncomfortable with it, most people are, most people > want to know what the future will hold but we don't; and that's all "first > person indeterminacy" is, a pompous way of saying "I dunno". > It's more than simple ignorance though. Even with perfect knowledge you cannot know. Even if you are God you cannot know. This type of uncertainty only comes about in regards to first person duplication of minds, and is altogether unlike other forms of uncertainty (save perhaps quantum uncertainty, which may be related to or explained by it). > > > > And you proved matter is something not found in mathematics how? >>>> >>> >>> I don't know how to fly to Tokyo on the blueprints of a 747. Do you? >>> >> >> And you proved matter is something not found in mathematics how? > > > I don't know how to fly to Tokyo on the blueprints of a 747. Do you? > Yes. First you start with the integers. Then you sit back and let their interrelations and connections build upon each other, and watch as some form infinitely recursive relations, some of which proceed for very long times if not indefinitely. Some of these numbers, with each iteration, develop internal patterns which multiply and divide themselves, some of those patterns through mostly random processes adapt to their local environment of more stable patterns in the series of numbers, some develop what we would call brains, some learn to build planes they call 747's, and some build networks of computers to communicate on e-mail lists and discuss the possible nature of reality. All of these things can be found among the relations between the integers. > > > >> >> If pronouns are not ambiguous John Clark may or may not have the >>> ability to provide answers, but at least John Clark will understand the >>> question. >> >> >> > > Or if John Clark is uncomfortable with where he perceives the line of >> questions and reasoning to be heading be may make up some excuse about >> pronouns or answer a different question than was asked. >> > > Then simply call John Clark's bluff and stop using personal pronouns with > abandon as it their meaning was as clear in a world with duplicating > machines as it is in our world without them. > >> >>So both are "you" but "you only see through the eyes of one of them". >>> So which one is blind. >>> >> >Neither is blind, but each sees through only one pair of eyes. >> > OK. > > > You (subjectively) survived >> > > Yes, and subjective survival is all I'm interested in, I'm not even sure > what objective survival means. > > >as one of them, >> > > One? Which one? > > >> >> if MWI is true in each universe there is one and only one >>> photographic plate and one and only one spot on it; >> >> > >> > Not in the cosmological form of MWI. >> > > Bullshit. > Then you ought to tell Anthony Aguirre and Max Tegmark what the error is in their paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1066 > > > As I said before, no information is gained unless you are the one who >> enters the duplication chamber. >> > > And that's the difference, a physicist doesn't have to personally squeeze > through those 2 tiny slits to do the experiment, that's the electrons job, > nevertheless he can learn something from just watching it. Nothing is > learned from watching Bruno's experiment. > > > You measure the spin state of an electron on the x-axis and find it is >> left. MWI says your duplicate in the other branch found it was right. One >> of you saw the left-state and became the "saw the left-state man" and the >> other saw the right-state and became the "saw the right-state man". >> Through the split, duplication, and observance of something different, >> each duplicate has acquired the subjective feeling of observing a random >> unpredictable event. >> > > Yes. > > I am glad you agree. Tell me whether you disagree with the following and if so why: You open the door to emerge from a duplication chamber, observe the skyline and find it includes the Kremlin. The experimental setup says your duplicate in the other city found the skyline included the Washington monument. One of you saw the Kremlin and became the "saw the Kremlin man" and the other saw the Washington monument and became the "saw the Washington monument man". Through the duplication and observance of something different, each duplicate has acquired the subjective feeling of observing a random unpredictable event. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.