On 13 Dec 2013, at 17:22, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Any time John Clark pretends that he does not understand or
believe in first-person indeterminancy,
But I do believe in and understand first-person indeterminacy, in
fact it was without question the very first thing that I ever
understood in my life; even as a infant I realized that I didn't
know what I would see next, and even if I did I didn't know what I
would do next.
You confuse "indeterminacy" (the general vague concept) with the many
different sort of indeterminacy:
1) by ignorance on initial conditions (example: the coin), that is a
3p indeterminacy.
2) Turing form of indeterminacy (example: the halting problem), that
is again a 3p indeterminacy.
3) quantum indeterminacy in copenhague (3p indeterminacy, if that
exists)
4) quantum indeterminacy in Everett (1p indeterminacy, which needs the
quantum SWE assumption)
5) computationalist 1p-indeterminacy (similar to Everett, except that
it does not need to assume the SWE or Everett-QM). It is the one we
get in step 3, and it is part of the derivation of physics from comp.
Bruno
>refer him to his own post where he admitts to understanding it and
believing in it:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/5PR1FXp_CSU/PnuTSn_82PwJ
> John Clark: "So yes, subjectively the intelligence would have no
way of knowing if A was true or B, or to put it another way
subjectively it would make no difference."
I stand by every word I wrote, especially "subjectively it would
make no difference"; but if you're going to quote me quote the
entire paragraph:
" Both A and B are identical in that the intelligence doesn't know
what it is going to see next; but increasingly convoluted thought
experiments are not needed to demonstrate that everyday fact. The
only difference is that in A lots of copies are made of the
intelligence and in B they are not; but as the intelligence would
have no way of knowing if a copy had been made of itself or not nor
would it have any way of knowing if it was the original or the copy,
subjectively it doesn't matter if A or B is true.
So yes, subjectively the intelligence would have no way of knowing
if A was true or B, or to put it another way subjectively it would
make no difference."
And I concluded that post with:
"the conclusion is the same, and that is the not very profound
conclusion that you never know what you're going to see next, and
Bruno's grand discovery of First Person Indeterminacy is just
regular old dull as dishwater indeterminacy first discovered by Og
the caveman. After the big buildup it's a bit of a letdown actually."
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.
