Here's an etext! Happy hunting :) http://ia700700.us.archive.org/18/items/QuantumElectrodynamics/Feynman-QuantumElectrodynamics.pdf
On 17 October 2013 10:33, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16 Oct 2013, at 16:46, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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. > > 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. > -- 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.
