Citeren meekerdb <>:

On 10/25/2013 9:08 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux < <>> 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.


It is:

3) Bruno has yet to develop the mathematical tools to do practical computations. Suppose that you could derive the Standard Model from deeper principles, then it doesn't matter what the philosophical objections against these principles are.

No one cares that Einstein's arguments leading to Special Relativity were not rigorous. Obviously, you can't derive special relativity rigorously from electrodynamics, because relativity is more fundamental than electrodynamics. At best you can present heuristic arguments. Some philosophers do make a problem out of that, but in physics no one really cares. Most modern textbooks do this correctly by discussing Lorentz invariance and only then deriving the Maxwell equations as the correct generalization of Coulomb's law.


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
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to