On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:42 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 10/7/2013 7:02 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:20 PM, chris peck <chris_peck...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Quentin
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Either you should say probability are non sensical in the MWI or if you
>>>>> accept them with the MWI, you should accept them the same way with the
>>>>> comp
>>>>> duplication experience.
>>>
>>> But MWI does have a problem when it comes to probabilities and it is
>>> taken
>>> very seriously by Everetians and their critics.
>>>
>>> In MWI any probabilities are a measure of ignorance rather than genuine
>>> chance, because all outcomes are realised. Any theory of everything will,
>>> I
>>> suspect, be similar in that regard.
>>>
>>> So what sense does it make in MWI to ask of the probabilities associated
>>> with one of two outcomes, if both are certain? It doesn't really make
>>> sense
>>> at all.
>>>
>>> It seems particularly acute to me for Bruno's experiment because at least
>>> in
>>> MWI worlds split on the basis of things we can not predict. There is no
>>> equivalent 'roll of the die' in Bruno's step 3. I know I am going to be
>>> duplicated. I know where I am going to be sent. I know by 'yes doctor' I
>>> will survive. Why shouldn't I expect to see both outcomes? After all,
>>> there
>>> is not two of me yet ...
>>>
>>> But I think you are right. In general it would be inconsistent to regard
>>> Bruno's theory, but not MWI, of having issues here.
>>
>> I propose that the main insight that is necessary here is that, when
>> there is some split (quantum choice, duplication machine, whatever),
>> _both_ copies are conscious and _both_ feel that they are a real
>> continuation of the original. But looking at it from the first person,
>> each copy has no way of accessing the point of view of the other copy.
>> Uncertainty arises from the lack of information that each first person
>> perspective has about the entire picture. This, in fact, explains
>> probabilities in a more convincing way than the more conventional
>> models, because in more conventional models you have to live with this
>> weird idea of "randomness" that seems to defy explanation.
>

Hi Brent,

> But the complete symmetry of the duplication makes it too easy.  If the
> probabilities are 1/3 and 2/3 are three worlds instantiated in MWI or only
> two worlds with different "weights".

Three world at least, I would say. Of course, I imagine n worlds where
n/3 worlds contain one outcome and 2n/3 the other. I imagine n to be a
very large number and each slice to contain many variations of other
outcomes we are not controlling for in this case.

>  What if the probabilities are 1/pi and
> (1-1/pi)?

I don't think a probability with an irrational value would make sense
in this model.

>  Or (1-epsilon) and epsilon, where epsilon is just to account for
> all those things you haven't thought of, but are really improbable?

No problem. A very small percentage of the gazillion worlds will
contain the improbable outcome.

>>
>> So when you make a statement about the probability of something
>> happening, you are always making a statement about a possible
>
>
> There's where the problem comes in - what does "possible" cover?

It's easier to explain what impossible means - I die (not that it's
impossible for me to die, but that no continuation exists from that
state).
Possible means anything else, but specific outcomes will be more or
less numerous in the gazillion continuations. We are already in a very
specific are of the multiverse -- one where human beings exit on earth
and so forth. This comes with asymmetries.

I'm not surprised if this is very naif though, and I have no intention
of postulating.

Telmo.

> Brent
>
>> continuation of your first person experience and nothing more. In
>> fact, "happening" becomes an entirely 1p concept. This does not prove
>> anything but it does fit what we observe without the need for a
>> mysterious property called "randomness".
>>
>> You don't have to be suicidal to say yes to the doctor because what
>> the doctor is going to do to you happens all the time anyway.
>>
>> I think.
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: allco...@gmail.com
>>> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 14:03:53 +0200
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
>>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/10/7 chris peck <chris_peck...@hotmail.com>
>>>
>>> Hi Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Are you saying that the step 3 would provide a logical reason to say
>>>>> "no"
>>>>> to the doctor, and thus abandoning comp?
>>>
>>> I'm saying only the suicidal would expect a 50/50 chance of experiencing
>>> Moscow (or Washington) after teleportation and then say yes to the
>>> doctor.
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It makes no sense, in the comp settings it is 100% sure you'll experience
>>> a
>>> next moment... the thing is, it's that there is two of you after
>>> duplication, both experience something M o W, the 50/50 is a probability
>>> expectation before duplication... it has the *exact same sense* as
>>> probability in MWI setting... it's the same.
>>>
>>> Either you should say probability are non sensical in the MWI or if you
>>> accept them with the MWI, you should accept them the same way with the
>>> comp
>>> duplication experience.
>>>
>>> Quentin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
>>>
>>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
>>> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:34:19 +0200
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06 Oct 2013, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7 October 2013 06:48, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is true, but it's also something Bruno has said many times.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for noticing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If comp is correct (to the extent that the mind is a computation, at
>>> least)
>>> then this is happening all the time. Heraclitus was right, you aren't the
>>> same person even from one second to the next. I thought that was partly
>>> the
>>> point that Bruno's step 3 was making. If comp, then we exist as steps in
>>> a
>>> computation,
>>>
>>>
>>> Well we exists at each step, but we are not step. Also, mind is not a
>>> computation, but a mind can be attached to a computation. I know it is
>>> simpler sometimes to abuse a little bit of the language, to be shorter
>>> and
>>> get to the point, but those simple nuance have to be taken into account
>>> at
>>> some points so it is important to be careful (even more so with
>>> pick-nickers)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and hence, at least in a sense, cease to exist and come back into
>>> existence
>>> constantly. Hence (if comp) we are at any given moment digital states can
>>> be
>>>
>>> duplicated, at least in principle, and could also be duplicated inside a
>>> computer (again in theory. The computer MAY have to be the size of a
>>> galaxy,
>>> or it may not - however the point is only to show what is possible in
>>> principle. Or is "in principle" itself objectionable?)
>>>
>>>
>>> Arguing about which man is which or who thinks what seems a bit
>>> pointless.
>>> The question is, do you agree that if consciousness is computation,
>>>
>>>
>>> In fact when you say that consciousness is computation, you identify a 1p
>>> notion with a 3p notion, and this is ... possible only for God:
>>> G* proves (Bp & p) <-> Bp, but no machine can proves this correctly about
>>> herself.
>>>
>>> That is why it is preferable to say that comp postulates only that "my
>>> consciousness" is invariant for a digital physical susbtitution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> a duplicator of this sort is at least a theoretical possibility?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think John Clark made clear that he agrees with the theoretical
>>> possibility. he seems only to disagree with the indeterminacy.
>>> Except that even this is not clear, as he agrees that this is
>>> phenomenologically equivalent with a throw of a coin, but then he is
>>> unclear
>>> why he does not proceed to step 4. He contradicts himself from post to
>>> post,
>>> like saying that such an indeterminacy is so trivial and not deep enough
>>> to
>>> proceed (like if understanding a step of a reasoning was a reason to
>>> stop),
>>> or that it is nonsense. So is it trivial or is it nonsense? We still
>>> don't
>>> know what John Clark is thinking.
>>>
>>>
>>> (I can accept it, despite no-cloning, because the multiverse itself is
>>> apparently doing it constantly.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, without Everett, I would not have dared to explain that the physical
>>> reality emerges from the many dreams by (relative) numbers.
>>> People accepting the consistency of Everett and stopping at step 3 are
>>> very
>>> rare. I know only one: Clark.
>>>
>>> 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 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.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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.

-- 
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