# Re: For John Clark

```2013/10/17 John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>  >> And I don't understand the difference between "first person
>>> uncertainty" and plain old fashioned uncertainty.
>>>
>>
>> > The difference is that from 3rd POV it is deterministic.
>>
>
> As I've said many times, being deterministic and being predictable is NOT
> the same thing.
>```
```
There is not *uncertainty* from the 3rd POV... nothing, zip, nada (both
event happen) and it is fully deterministic.

There is uncertainty from the 1st POV, and it is random.

> Even if we restrict ourselves to just Newtonian physics something can be
> 100% deterministic and still be 100% unpredictable even in theory.  Even
> with all the information in the world sometimes the only way to know what
> something will do is watch it an see because by the time you've finished
> the calculation about what it will do it will have already done it.
>
> > POV plays a role.
>>
>
> It's not exactly a grand new discovery that point of view can play a role.
>
> > So as I said to you before, be consistent and reject MWI. If you accept
>> assigning a probability of seeing spin up/down before measuring, you should
>> accept the same for Bruno's thought experiment, or you must reject both
>>
>
> I have absolutely no objection to assigning probability when it is
> appropriate to do so, but I do object to using probability to assign
> identity, because predictions, both good ones and bad, have nothing to do
> with a feeling of self.
>
> > or look like a fool.
>>
>
> In Bruno's thought experiment [YOU] walk into a duplicating chamber and
> Bruno asks after the duplication, that is to say after you has been
> duplicated, what is the probability that [YOU] will see this or that. When
> John Clark asks "who is you?" Bruno responds that he could no more answer
> that question than he could square a circle.  But even though Bruno admits
> that he doesn't know what he means when he says [YOU] he still demands to
> know what [YOU] will see. So who's the real fool around here?
>

In MWI thought experiment, *you* (John Clark) measure the spin, and before
doing so, *you* ask *yourself* what is the probability that *you* will see
spin up... and John Clark says 50%... somehow John Clark will not ask who
is *you* and proceed unlike with Bruno's thought experiment beside being
the same thing, John Clark is thus not consistent.

Quentin

>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>  --
> 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
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.