On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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: 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. > > 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 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. > > > 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 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.
