On 06 Oct 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> The M-guy is the H-guy (the M-guy remembers having been the H-guy)
The H-guy turns into the M-guy, but they are not identical just as
you are not identical with the Bruno Marchal of yesterday.
> The W-guy is the H-guy (the W-guy remembers having been the H-guy)
The H-guy turns into the W-guy, but they are not identical just as
you are not identical with the Bruno Marchal of yesterday
But I am still Bruno Marchal, apparently. The FPI depends on that
appearance.
> But the M-guy is not the W-guy
True, but the H-guy and the M-guy and the M-guy are all Bruno
Marchal because BRUNO MARCHAL HAS BEEN DUPLICATED.
That's my point. OK.
>The rest are unconvincing rhetorical tricks,
Rhetorical tricks my ass! These are details of profound importance
simply glossed over with the slapdash use of personal pronouns. And
that's pretty damn sloppy for a mathematician.
That's again an unconvincing rhetorical tricks. Be specific please.
> and which, btw, can be done for the quantum indeterminacy,
The criticism some have with Quantum Mechanics is that what it says
is very very odd, but odd or not and love it or hate it what Quantum
Mechanics says is crystal clear
This is simply false. Look at the debate in the literature. See the
link given just now by Brent. In this list most believe that QM is
slightly more understandable with the MWI. Not all problems are
solved. Anyway, it is simpler in the first six steps of the UDA, where
the situation is utterly transparent, given the protocol, and the
definition of 1-I and 3-I.
and it gets the job done; in contrast when your ideas are not opaque
they are logically inconsistent.
You should prove statement like that, with specific quote and
references.
> Each time we talk about the prediction the "he" refer to the guy
in Helsinki before the duplication,
If "he" refers to Bruno Marchal the Helsinki guy then the correct
prediction "he" would make is that "he" will see Helsinki and only
Helsinki;
You can apply that idea to the guy who throw a coin. You would say
that such a guy can only predict that he will throw a coin. This is
ridiculous, frankly.
not that predictions, good or bad, have the slightest thing to do
with a feeling of continuity or feeling of self.
If that did not exist, no probabilities at all would ever make sense.
(Note that formally your remark is met by the "& Dt" in the formal
approach, but it is met by simple common sense in UDA).
And if you want to say that Bruno Marchal the Helsinki guy is dead
then fine, but then you must also say that Bruno Marchal of
yesterday is dead and personally I don't want to torture the
language more that I have to under these very odd circumstances of
self duplication.
And we can't do that, because it would make comp false.
> you fake misunderstanding
Why on earth would I, or anyone, pretend not to understand something
when they really did?
Because you would ask question, instead of asserting that there is
something false, without being able to say what.
Bruno
> of the most easy part of the reasoning.
If this is the clearest reasoning in your "proof" then I'm doubly
glad I didn't read anymore.
John K Clark
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
