On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:15, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 15:59, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/10/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against
step 3? Then I invite you to attempt to explain it to us.
I think I understand it. Asking the question "which will you be"
in the MW experiment is ambiguous because "you" is duplicated.
But that question is John Clark's invention. I never ask it. The
question asked is about your FIRST PERSON expectation about 1-your
future. It cannot be ambiguous when we assume comp.
Sure it is. What does "your first person expectation" refer to.
Does it ask what will your 1-p experience be? Or does it ask what
is your 1-p feeling about where you will be?
Consider a quantum measurement instead. Do we have an expectation
of 1p experience when we check if a photon's been reflected or
transmitted? We assign a probability to each outcome, surely? Why
is Bruno's duplicator different?
There are two different people you can ask, "How did the experiment
come out."
Well, likewise with the quantum version. In fact there are two
versions of you who can ask them (i.e. if you accept the MWI, what's
the problem?)
(We seem to have been around in a loop on this about 100 times...)
I agree and I'm willing to take it as hypothetical that it doesn't
make a difference, at least till I understand the whole argument.
But I suspect that it could. It might require that in step a whole
world be created and that I think could make a difference.
The point is that if we take the assumptions of comp, then quantum
duplication, hypothetical matter transmitter duplication, and living
from day to day ALL involve the same amount of (or lack of)
continuity.
In other words, all types of existence appear to be equally
"Heraclitean" and I'm not sure why Bruno's thought experiment should
be treated any differently to the nonduplicated and the quantum-
duplicated versions. He's just using it to point out the somewhat
disjointed nature of normal existence by putting it into a
hypothetical situation where we can more easily think about the
consequences.
It's all very well having reservations that X might make a
difference, but as Bruno keeps saying, show him where he's gone
wrong so he can stop worrying about comp and spend his time keeping
bees instead!
Exactly :)
Bruno
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.
