On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> > 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.

Bruno, are you trying to convince people that I haven't made DOZENS of
specific complaints about your sloppy use of personal pronouns that is
unacceptable in a world with duplicating chambers? Are you saying I've
never asked "Who the hell is "he" ?" and gotten no reply? Are you really
saying that?!

> 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.

What is false, that what Quantum Mechanics says is clear or that what
Quantum Mechanics says is very very odd? I believe both things are true.

 > In this list most believe that QM is slightly more understandable with
> the MWI.

And I am a big MWI fan too, I think it's correct and who knows it might
even be correct; but Evolution didn't build my monkey brain for this sort
of thing so I'm not going to pretend I don't find it odd. And as I said
before, whatever the correct interpretation of Quantum Mechanics turns out
to be it's going to be odd.

>> 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.

If duplicating chambers were not involved then it would indeed be
ridiculous nit picking, but NOT if they do exist. In your thought
experiments typically "the guy" is duplicated so now there are TWO, and
then "the guy" flips a coin and you demand to know what the ONE and only
ONE result that "the guy" will see. And this is not just ridiculous it is
logically inconsistent.

> your remark is met by the "& Dt" in the formal approach

Well I'm glad you cleared that up.

> but it is met by simple common sense in UDA.

Common sense will be just as useful in understanding how things work in a
world with duplication chambers in it as it is in understanding how Quantum
Mechanics or your Universal Dance Association proof works. Not very.

  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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to