On 08 Oct 2013, at 18:05, John Clark wrote:




On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You are spitting non-sense... that's not what is asked. He will do *both* from a 3rd POV.... but each Bruno can only live *ONE* stream of consciousness which is *either* M or W, it's not both. So before duplication, the probability (or measure of you prefer) is 50/50 for the destinations from the POV if the guy standing in H. *IT'S THE SAME THING IN MWI SETTING AND I DON'T HEAR YOU CRYING NONSENSE ABOUT IT ON EVERY POST*. Be consistant and reject MWI as an obvious BS crap.

 And You are mixing apples and oranges and bananas:

*Quantum Mechanics is about finding a probability that works better than random guessing in predicting if a event will be seen.

*Many Worlds is a theory that explains why Quantum Mechanics works as well as it does that some think (including me) is a little (but only a little) less odd than competing explanations.

*Bruno's "proof" is about the continuous feeling of self,

It is a reasoning starting from the invariance of consciousness for a digital substitution (computationalism).



and that has nothing to do with predictions in general or probabilities in particular;


That invariance entails that physics has to emerge from a statistics on computations, and we can already technically compare many things in the comp-physics and the usual physics, so that we can already refute a version of comp (comp + the classical theory of knowledge).



it is about remembering who you were yesterday.

With a self-duplication in between. Yes, that step 3. You remember that you were in Helsinki, and you see that you are in Washington, for example. You see also that in the notebook you predicted that you will feel to be in Washington and in Moscow, but obviously you see only Washington, so you conclude that you were wrong or did not understand the question (and with some chance, now you know better, as we will reiterate the experience.

With step seven, there will be (like in Deutsch interpretation of Everett QM) aleph_0 copies "in between", and things will get more interesting and precise about the relationship between consciousness and physical realities (and other realities). It might be better, at some point, to talk, like Deutsch, on consciousness differentiation, instead of universe multiplication, as the term "universe" is quite fuzzy.

IN AUDA (arithmetical universal dovetailer argument), we "model" the machine's believability by the assertability by an ideal correct universal machine believing in induction, which makes their logic of provability axiomatized by Löb's formula, and derive the quantum logic by defining the probability one by Bp & Dt (with all the technical details provided).

We exploit the gap between G and G*, to get namable but non rationally believable truth for those machines, which provides natural candidate for qualia, and here too there are formal confirmations. this has been verified by many people, but you can verify it by yourself, in you study a bit of logic.

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.

Reply via email to