On 16 Oct 2013, at 16:46, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> 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".

That's because neither will happen, however I the Helsinki Man can predict that I the Helsinki Man will see only Helsinki. I the Helsinki Man can also predict that I the Helsinki Man will turn into the Moscow Man or the Washington Man, but is unable to know which because I the Helsinki Man don't know if the next photon that will enter the eye of I the Helsinki Man will come from Moscow or Washington.

OK. We agree. You do grasp enough of the FPI to proceed to step 4.

I the Helsinki Man can make a third prediction, even if the predictions made by I the Helsinki Man turn out to be wrong (actually they won't be wrong in this instance but it wouldn't matter if they were) I the Helsinki Man would still feel like I the Helsinki Man.

We completely agree on this.
With "your theory of identity", both the M-man and the W-man are the H- man.

 > If you are OK with this, please proceed.

I'm not OK with this


and will not proceed.


>> 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

You can say that what the founders of Quantum Mechanics were saying was wrong if you like, but they were talking about wave collapse. And the founders of Quantum Mechanics would also say that arguing over the difference between a event with no cause and a event with a cause that can never be detected even in theory is a waste of time.

They were under the spell of Vienna positivism. Einstein said about this that he would have preferred to be plumber than to hear things like that.

Anywy, with comp and/or Everett, we have no more any reason to believe in event without cause.

 > that Feynman called a collective hallucination.

Hmm, I've heard lots of people say that reality is a collective hallucination and I know a few Feynman sayings but I never heard him say that about wave collapse.

It is in a footnote in his little book on light. I don't have it under my hand for now.

When did he say it? What is the entire quotation? Google can't seem to find anything like that.

Ah! You force me to do research in my (new) apartment. Let me pray that it is not in some box ...

... I found it, and the quote. It is page 108 of my french edition ""Lumière et Matière, une étrange histoire", which is a translation of his book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter".

The exact quote in french is: "Il est bon de garder à présent à l'esprit ce principe général si l'on ne veut pas tomber dans toutes sortes de confusions telles que la 'réduction du paquet d'ondes' et autres effets magiques". I translate: " It is good to keep that general idea in mind if we want to avoid all sorts of confusions like 'the reduction of the wave packet' or other magical effect." (the general idea is that the wave represents an amplitude of probability, whose squared gives the probability).

> 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.

The problem has never been X calling himself X, that's fine; the problem comes when you a third party who never remembers being X starts talking about "X" to yet another third party in a world that has 2 things in it that have a equal right to call themselves "X" because duplication chambers exist. If somebody hides behind pronouns in such a world anything can be "proven".

Only see a problem here, when there is just an indetermination on a subjective outcome.

> 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.

Yes, just as John Clark thought. It is theoretically impossible to explain Bruno Marchal's ideas without using ill defined pronouns to hide behind and without assuming the very things that Bruno Marchal is attempting to prove.

No made ill use of pronouns, and you mock when I added the necessary nuances: notably the distinction between first person pov and third person pov, completely defined in sharable 3p terms.

The only explanation given is I is I and you is you and he is he, but before Euclid even started his first proof he made crystal clear what all his terms meant, and Euclid never said a line is a line.

Nor did I.

> You confuse [blah blah]

And when I provide precise and of course more lengthy explanations, you just skip them. This can't help you.

There is one thing John Clark is most certainly not confused about, unless used very very carefully pronouns will cause endless confusion in a world where duplicating chambers exist.

Sure, that is why I cautiously define the use through the diaries, which is kept by the experiencer (first person view) and not (third person view). This is explained in all the publications, with more or less details.

I have no clue of any problem with this. You have certainly not succeed in showing one, as "you" never distinguish between the 1-view, and the 3-view, and it seems you cannot proceed to step 4, for the only reason that you don't proceed in the whole step 3. You stop on the 3-view on the 1-views, without ever putting yourself in the shoes of all the copies, or just reading their accounts in their diaries. For unknown reason, you just stop to think.



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