Citeren meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>:
On 10/25/2013 9:08 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com
> 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
> 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
> 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
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
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 email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.