On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:53, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> After a experiment has been completed the Many World's
Interpretation can give some people, including me, a intuitive feel
of what just happened,
> The analogous experiment in the UDA is pressing the button and
seeing what City you now find yourself.
^
^^ ^^^^^^^^
Yep it's true, the pee pee "proof" can not be explained without the
use of ambiguous pronouns to hide behind.
I did it more than once. You miss the point: you know that whoever you
can feel to be in the immediate future---after pushing the button, you
(whoever you have become) will see only one city, making your
statement non sensical.
> So I would say MW is a theory and not an interpretation.
OK, but it's a theory that has not been proven;
An applied theory is never proven. And MW is a theorem in QM. It
follows from the linearity of the evolution and of the tensor product.
Superpositions never disappear. QM is not proven (except from comp),
but the existence of the moon has never been proven. "To prove"
happens only in theories, and all theories are assumed. We have only
evidences or refutation.
don't get me wrong I rather like the theory but that doesn't make it
true. Godel thought that all arithmetical statements are either true
or they are not, but he also knew there are true arithmetical
statements that can never be proven to be true. So maybe that's also
the case for statements about physics and cosmology, maybe many
worlds is true but there is no way to ever experimentally
demonstrate it. On the other hand maybe tomorrow somebody will find
a experimental way to prove it.
> I know of no good explanation of why quantum computers should work
under single-universe interpretations.
And at least so far quantum computers haven't done much of anything
except to find the factors of the number "15". We'll talk again when
somebody makes a real quantum computer, but I don't see what they or
many worlds has to do with the pee pee "proof".
Comp implies MW, or many-dreams, and that physics emerges, in a
precise mathematical way, from that.
We have already an ortholattice structure at the sigma_1 bottom. You
criticize without studying.
> You've agreed there is a single definite result (even in MW)
after making some measurement.
Yes.
> You then say there is no single result in Bruno's experiment
Not true, there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K
Clark sees Washington and Moscow.
That can make sense, but but then you are me. And that does not make
the relative indeterminacy disappear, because John Clark, in Helsinki,
is wrong if he predicts that he *will* see both W and M. He will see
only W, or only M, as seeing is a first person view, and that first
person view will not been duplicated *from his first person view",
only from a third person view, but we do this since we are amoeba.
So if your prediction is "John will see W and M", both the first
person obtained will refute it.
> because "you have been duplicated."
It is beyond dispute that "you" has indeed been duplicated, so if
that personal pronoun is used in a question with no additional
information on which "you"
We have already agreed that you are both, because you are duplicated.
But without adding telepathy you cannot know in advance which one you
will feel to be.
is being referred to then no answer can be given because the
question is ambiguous.
>> However Bruno in his pee pee proof claims to have discovered
something new about prediction but he is wrong about that.
> Third person indeterminacy is not what he claims as some new
prediction.
Bruno claims to have found a new sort of indeterminacy unrelated to
quantum indeterminacy or the sort of uncertainty Godel and Turing
dealt with. Bruno's claims are untrue.
So what is your algorithm of prediction? "W and M" has been refuted,
but you stick repeating that it is untrue, without given any algorithm
which is not refuted immediately by BOTH copies (showing that the
pronouns' ambiguity is just irrelevant).
> you abandoned the proof at step 3 out of the 8.
One does not need to eat the entire egg to know it is bad.
You deny elementary common sense, and avoid the definitions given when
we single that out. No one here is able to make any sense of your
"refutation".
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
