On 10/25/2013 9:08 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com
<mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question* about the
probability of
*you* (who is you ? pinocchio maybe ?)
In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who "you" is because however many
copies of "you" there may or may not be they will never meet and John Clark will never
see more than one copy of Quentin Anciaux. But in Bruno's thought experiment that is no
longer true, so to continue to blithely babble on about "you" causes nothing but confusion.
I don't see why that is determinative. Suppose the M-man never meets the W-man and in
fact neither of them even knows whether the other one exists?
> measuring spin up while measuring the spin of an electron
And probability implies prediction and prediction has nothing to do with a sense of
self, and that is what Bruno's "proof" is all about. If when you pressed the button you
were 99% certain, in fact even if you were 100% certain and there was not the tiniest
particle of doubt in your mind that you would end up in Washington, and one second later
you found yourself in Moscow your sense of self would not be diminished one iota, you'd
just figure that you made a bad prediction, and it wouldn't be for the first time.
Sure, and if the experiment were repeated N times then most of the 2^N participants would
find, consulting their diaries, that they were right about half the time and wrong the
half - and, even after comparing notes with one another, they would decide that Bernoulli
trials are a good model of what happens when being teleported via Bruno's duplicator.
> Your agenda is not to try to comprehend something, it is just to bash
someone with
no reason except misplaced pride.
Ask yourself this question, why aren't Bruno's ideas universally recognized by the
scientific community as a work of genius? There are 2 possibilities:
1) Due to the same misplaced pride that I have the entire scientific community is
jealous of Bruno and would rather destroy a stunning new advancement in human knowledge
than admit they didn't find it first.
2) The entire scientific community has run into the exact same logical stumbling block
in Bruno's ideas that I did.
Or they consider this particular idea, uncertainty via duplication, to be a commonplace
and uncontroversial. Most people (including me) find the last two steps of Bruno's
argument more suspect in which he argues that all possible computation is the fundamental
basis of the material world.
Brent
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 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.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3614/6772 - Release Date: 10/22/13
--
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.
