2014-02-12 1:17 GMT+01:00 chris peck <chris_peck...@hotmail.com>: > Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc > > > >> Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument) and I > invited him to elaborate, as that might give possible lightening. He did > not comply, and I was beginning that UDA was problematical for people named > "Chris". > > I think Clark should elaborate on his arguments rather than me, firstly > because he'll do it better than I ever could and secondly it will save me > the embarrassment if I have him wrong. I've elaborated at length on my own > criticisms of step 3 and stand by them. > > I will say though that I find it astonishing if people work their way > through Bruno's steps and claim to understand them and then maintain that > Clark's erudite and ofttimes witty criticisms are in some way obtuse or > difficult to follow. That the person who actually devised the steps > themselves remains confused about Clark's comments almost beggars belief. > There;s something very odd about that. > > There is some fuss about Clark's reluctance to apply his argument to MWI. > Like some others I think Clark possibly makes a misstep when (if?) he > defends the notion of 1p in-determinism within an MWI context. I can see > though that in Comp people are duplicated within worlds whereas in MWI they > are duplicated between worlds, and there possibly are some repercussions > vis a vis the proper use of pro-nouns because of that. Im not sure it > matters much, because Clark could be right about Comp and just inconsistent > about MWI. So this complaint, loudly pursued by Quentin, has always seemed > impotent to me and not worth bothering about. > > It is worth pursuing, because the argument against is valid for both, you can't use a claim invalidating MWI and computationalism with a duplication experiment, and then claiming MWI is ok and computationalism with duplication is BS... I do not defend that computationalism is true, I only defend using correct argumentation for or against... I would not have said anything if John Clarck would have rejected MWI on the same ground, he does not and use insults against Bruno, that's not a correct way to argue.
> Im reluctant to get involved in the step 3 discussions because, mentioning > no names Quentin and PGC, people can get very emotional and arm wavey about > people criticizing Bruno's metaphysics. > I do not, valid critics are valid, but when you point to someone the inconsistency in his argument and that he maintains for years the same invalid argument that means that person does not want to argue, he wants to defend a position at all costs, that's evil. Bruno may well be incorrect, his argument invalid... also note that it is only an argument about the *consequence* of the computationalist hypothesis, it says nothing about if computationalism is true or not... It's not an argument *in favor* of computationalism, it's an argument about what it means if computationalism is true and that argument is valid even if computationalism is false, assuming computationalism true, that's were it leads. Quentin > So for now at least, I'll limit myself to recommending the odd sci-fi > movie on the film thread. The Quiet Earth (1985) is a little known gem, btw. > > All the best > Chris. > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:00:42 +1300 > Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas > From: lizj...@gmail.com > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > > On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of > the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured > > > Correctly, I assume. > > > and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on > Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction. > > > That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials have > a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that presumably > have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain EPR when you > can do it very simply anyway? > > > And how can it be done very simply? > > By dropping Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric (for > the particles used in an EPR experiment, which are generally photons). > > > Please explain how dropping asymmetric time explains EPR. > > > It makes it logically possible. I will have to ask a physicist for the > details, but it is a mechanism whereby the state of the measuring apparatus > can influence the state of the entire system. If we assume the emitter > creates a pair of entangled photons and their polarisation is measured at > two spacelike-separated locations, then the polarisers can act as a > constraint on the state of the photons and hence of the system, and that > the setting of one polariser can therefore influence the polarisation > measured in the other branch of the experiment (without any FTL signals / > non-locality). > > This preserves realism and locality at the expense of dropping an > assumption that most physicists think is untrue anyway (though the idea of > time being asymmetric is so deeply ingrained that we automatically assume > it must be true of systems it doesn't apply to, like single photons). > > > Your explanation is hardly satisfactory for this physicist > > > That's because I'm not a physicist. I'm merely showing that an explanation > is possible, and hence should be investigated (although it isn't *me*showing > this - it's been looked into by various people, from Wheeler-Feynman > absorber > theory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorber_theory>onwards). > > It has been considered a satisfactory basis for an explanation of Bell's > Inequality by some physicists, including John Bell. > > > -- > 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
