On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:18, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> what you say confirms that both the W-man and the M-man will
assess that they were unable to predict the result of opening the door
Bruno I really didn't need your help on that, I already knew that I
can't always successfully predict what I will see after I open a door.
The point is that with the step 3 protocol, you (the H-guy) can never
predict among {W, M}, if the result will be "I feel being the W-man",
or "I feel being the M-man".
If you are OK with this, please proceed.
>> I agree that life is like a box of chocolates, you never know
what you're going to see next. Forrest Gump had that figured out a
long time ago.
> That applies to all indeterminacies. You would have said to the
founders of QM that we know about indeterminacy since Pascal or
Boltzman.
No, the founders of Quantum Mechanics were saying 2 things that
neither Pascal or Boltzman were:
1) Some events have no cause.
Only those believing in the collapse (that Feynman called a collective
hallucination). You confuse QM and one of his most nonsensical
interpretation.
2) Probability is a property of the thing itself and not just a
measure of our lack of information.
In QM-withoit collapse, the probability comes, like in comp, from the
ignorance about which computation we belong too.
The sort of indeterminacy you're talking about was first discovered
by Professor Og of Caveman University who didn't write in the
journal Paleolithic Times because Professor Og didn't know how to
write.
Lol
> What is new with the FPI in this setting is that everything is
deterministic in the 3p-view, yet indetermistic in the 1-view,
The trouble is that Bruno Marchal is unable to say who exactly is
that is experiencing this "1-view".
I don't need this. This should be made utterly clear in the iterated
self-duplication, where I multiply you 24 times per second (24) during
1h30 (60 * 90), into as many copies that can be sent in front of one
of the 2^(16180 * 10000) possible images on a screen with 16180 *
10000 pixels, which can be black or white each.
All you need to understand is that almost all among the 2^(16180 *
10000) * (60 * 90) * 24 see white noise, independently of who they
are. The predictions bears on the relative experiences.
I do not need more about identity than "your definition". Anyone
capable of remembering having been X, has the right to be recognized
as X.
Without using pronouns please explain who the hell Mr. 1 is and then
maybe I can answer your questions.
Without using pronouns, I lost my job.
The whole approach is indexical, and the third person "I" is
eventually defined in the Gödel-Kleene manner (the Dx = "xx" trick,
that I promised to Liz to redo in the terms of the phi_i and the w_i).
Then the first person I is defined, in UDA, as being only the content
of the memory (= "your definition").
The only difference between first person and third person, used here,
is that the first person memories (the content of the diaries), are
annihilated and reconstituted together with the person's body.
In the arithmetical version, the first person is proved to be not
directly amenable to the use of the dx = "xx" algorithm (an obvious
cousin of the famous Mocking Bird combinators, btw), but, by a sort of
miracle, thanks to Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, (using the
Dx = "xx" algorithm at another level!), we can recover it with the
Theaetetus definition of the knower, which recovers in the only way
possible (a result proved by Artemov) a knower from the Gödel's notion
of self-reference.
So, asking me to not use pronouns, in what is in great part a theory
of pronouns, is like asking me to square the circle.
The eight arithmetical hypostases are eight precise mathematics of
eight simple and deep machine's self-referential points of view, that
is pronouns, like 1-I, 3-I, singular, plural, etc.
But in UDA, you don't need Gödel-Kleene, as the first person histories
are defined in simple third person terms (sequences of W and M written
in the personal diaries), and it is rather obvious that, with the
protocols, all are 1-self non predictable, although some statistical
distribution can be predicted.
Step 4 asks if those statistical distribution [of those first person
experiences (diary content of the one who actually do the self
multiplications)] have to change if we introduce reconstitution
delays in some branches of the self-multiplication changes ).
That's just step 2 + step 3. So it should be easy.
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 [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.
