On 10 Dec 2013, at 18:03, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> 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.
Bruno thinks you can trace personal identity from the present to the
future,
Then you can't say that you will survive anything. We die at each
instant and comp is made trivial, and we can predict anything.
Or you say "no" to the doctor.
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,
That's the point.
successful ones or otherwise, and in fact you might not even have a
future, but you certainly have a past.
Which is refute at each second in any experimental procedure.
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.
Not in comp, and Everett has to be extended on the arithmetical reality.
Bruno
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
