On 06 Oct 2013, at 19:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/6/2013 12:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Oct 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
> you have agreed that all "bruno marchal" are the original one (a
case where Leibniz identity rule fails,
If you're talking about Leibniz Identity of indiscernibles it most
certainly has NOT failed.
I was talking on the rule:
a = b
a = c
entails that b = c
The M-guy is the H-guy (the M-guy remembers having been the H-guy)
The W-guy is the H-guy (the W-guy remembers having been the H-guy)
But the M-guy is not the W-guy (in the sense that the M-guy will
not remember having been the W-guy, and reciprocally).
The rest are unconvincing rhetorical tricks, already answered, and
which, btw, can be done for the quantum indeterminacy, as many
people showed to you. Each time we talk about the prediction the
"he" refer to the guy in Helsinki before the duplication, after the
duplication, we mention if we talk of the guy in M or in W, or of
both, and look at their individual confirmation or refutation of
their prediction done in Helsinki. We just look at diaries, and I
have made those things clear, but you talk like if you don't try to
There is nothing controversial, and you fake misunderstanding of
the most easy part of the reasoning.
Not sure what is your agenda, but it is clear that you are not
interested in learning.
Well there is still *some* controversy; mainly about how the
indeterminancy is to be interpreted as a probability. There's some
good discussion here, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20802/why-is-gleasons-theorem-not-enough-to-obtain-born-rule-in-many-worlds-interpret
especially the last comment by Ron Maimon.
I was talking on the arithmetical FPI, or even just the local
probability for duplication protocol. This has nothing to do with QM,
except when using the MWI as a confirmation of the mùany dreams.
Having said that I don't agree with the preferred base problem. That
problem comes from the fact that our computations can make sense only
in the base where we have evolved abilities to make some distinction.
The difficulty is for physicists believing in worlds, but there are
only knowledge states of observer/dreamers.
But I insist, here, what I said was not controversial is that in the
WM duplication thought experience, *with the precise protocol given*,
we have an indeterminacy, indeed even a P = 1/2 situation. The quantum
case is notoriously more difficult (due indeed to the lack of
definition of "world"), but it seems to me that Everett use both
Gleason theorem + a sort of FPI (more or less implicitly).
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.