On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 12 Feb 2014, at 01:17, chris peck wrote: > > 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. > > > > Come on, the poor guy tried hard since two years, and has convinced only > him. But you said you do understood him, so it would be interesting you try > to explain (except that it is rather easy to see that he is incoherent, as > all replies to him have shown. He just stop the reasoning in the middle, or > change the definitions). > > > > > > I've elaborated at length on my own criticisms of step 3 and stand by them. > > > > It was not a refutation, as I have explained. > > > > > > 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. > > > Really? What do you understand in Clark's argument? > > > > > > 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. > > > > The argument just shows that you cannot program a robot so that it can > predicts a specific happening, which must exist if we assume comp. > > Can you show us that algorithm? Or explain how it could exist? > > > > > > 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. > > > The 1p and 3p definitions shows this to be irrelevant. or use that to > refute step 3. Clark has not succeeded in this task, and his argument > confuse 3-1 view with 1-views, systematically. > > > > > 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. > > 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. > > > Which metaphysics? It is a reasoning, simply. the assumption is that you > can survive with a digital brain. Are you, like Clark, OK with step 0, 1, > and 2? > > And, if you are not OK with step 3 for a genuine reason, just tell it to > us. of course, if it is just literary philosophical hand waving, which I > suspect (to be franc, due to you absence of doubt on the question), then > some people can get emotional, as we are used and sometimes tired with that > kind of pseudo-philosophical non-arguments. > > If step 3 is false, just provide the needed algorithm to prove this. > > Bruno > > > > > > 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: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist<[email protected]> 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. > > Wheeler-Feynman theory works if particles can come back from the future. I do not believe that is physically possible. However, In my last Metaverse paper, I suggested that it could happen in the mental world if computations are instantaneous. > > > -- > 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. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
