On 12/10/2013 9:03 AM, John Clark wrote:


On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com <mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com>> wrote:

    > You're avoiding my question. Why don't you also reject the MWI?

If I am reluctant to answer your question it is because I've already done so many times in the past, but if you insist I will do so again. The Many World's Interpretation is about what can be expected to be seen, and although it may seem strange to us Everett's ideas are 100% logically self consistent. Bruno's "proof" is not about what will be seen but about a feeling of identity, about who you can expect to be; but you do not think you're the same person you were yesterday because yesterday you made a prediction about today that turned out to be correct, you think you're the same person you were yesterday for one reason and one reason only, you remember being Telmo Menezes yesterday. It's a good thing that's the way it works because I make incorrect predictions all the time and when I do I don't feel that I've entered oblivion, instead I feel like I am the same person I was before because I can still remember being the guy who made that prediction that turned out to be wrong. I don't feel like I'm dead, I just feel like the guy who made a crappy prediction.

Sure, but if you were repeatedly wrong about Washington and Moscow in a way consistent with Bernoulli trials, wouldn't you begin to think "Where I'm going to end up next time I do this teleportation thing is random with Prob(W)=Prob(M)=0.5."?

Brent


Bruno thinks you can trace personal identity from the present to the future, but that is like pushing on a string. You can only pull a string and you can only trace identity from the past to the present. A feeling of self has nothing to do with predictions, successful ones or otherwise, and in fact you might not even have a future, but you certainly have a past.

If tomorrow somebody remembers being Telmo Menezes today then Telmo Menezes has a future, if not then Telmo Menezes has no future, and Quantum Mechanics or a understanding of Everett's Many Worlds is not needed for any of it. Period. However in a completely different unrelated matter, if you want to assign a probability that tomorrow a observer that can be interviewed by a third party will observe a electron move left or right then Quantum Mechanics will be needed. And some (including me) feel that Everett's interpretation is a convenient way to think about it, although there are other ways.

  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.

--
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.

Reply via email to