On 20 Feb 2014, at 16:59, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I can say today that I am the guy having answered your post of
last week.
But if duplicating chambers exist then there are lots of people who
could say exactly the same thing, so more specificity is needed.
Well, if it is about a prediction on 1p events, the specificity is
simple: we have to interview all the copies.
>> and neither is experiencing Helsinki right now, therefore Mr. he
sees neither Washington nor Moscow.
> So, this is my first post to you,
Bruno Marchal has certainly sent other posts to John Clark, but if
duplicating chambers exist it's not at all clear who Mr. my is.
On the contrary. It is always clear. In the 3p we are all copies, and
in the 1p we are one of them.
That is what they all say. They have they own permanent atomic
memories like "WWMWMM". Say.
> despite I remember having sent other post?
The question is ambiguous because lots and lots of people in
addition to Mr. I remember the exact same thing.
Obviously. We agree. But there is no ambiguity. By definition of 1p
and comp, we have to take all the copies 1p view into account. That is
why if the H-guy predicted "W v M", all its copies win the bet, and if
he predicted "W & M", all the copies admits this was wrong (even if
correct for the 3-1 view, but clearly false from their 1-views).
> If Mr he sees neither W or M, then he died,
If Bruno Marchal wants to invent a new language and that's what the
words "death" and "he" are decreed to mean then fine, but to be
consistent John Clark and Bruno Marchal of yesterday would have to
be dead too. And it should be noted that invented languages make
communication with others difficult, just look at Esperanto, and
John Clark thinks that deep philosophical discussions are difficult
enough as they are even if conducted in a mutually agreed upon
language, so more obstacles to understanding are not needed.
You quote and comment yourself!
> and then comp is false.
That's fine, I don't give a hoot in hell if the incoherent grab bag
of ideas you call "comp" is false or not. The word is your invention
not mine and you're the only one who seems to know exactly what it
means.
You have repeated that sentence an infinity of times. Comp is the
quite standard hypothesis that the brain, or whatever responsible for
my consciousness manifestation here and now, is Turing emulable.
It is not my invention. "comp" abbreviates computationalism. I show
the consequence, and you stop at step 3 for reason that you do not
succeed to communicate.
> We also died each time we measure a spin, or anything.
Then the word "died" doesn't mean much.
That was a consequence of your saying.
> In AUDA this is a confusion
You have forgotten IHA.
I told you more than five times what AUDA means. Stop joking, and try
to be serious. AUDA is the Arithmetical UDA, also called "interview of
the universal machine" in sane04. It is the main part of the thesis in
computer science.
If you doubt that it means that you do repeat hearsay.
> between []p and []p & <>t.
How in the world could anybody be confused between []p and []p & <>t
especially if they had a nice low mileage AUDA convertible to help
them get around town?
Mocking does not help you.
> you believe we have refuted comp. That would be a gigantic discovery
Not to me it wouldn't! I don't care if "comp" is true or false
because I don't believe "comp" is worth a bucket of warm spit.
That contradicts your saying yes to step 0, 1 and 2.
> Pronouns does not introduce any problem,
Personal pronouns like all pronouns are just a sort of shorthand
that were invented to save time and for no other reason, they
generally cause no trouble as long as the referent is clear. And yet
it is a fact that Bruno Marchal is simply incapable of expressing
ideas about the unique nature of personal identity without using
personal pronouns.
I did it, but you are the one caming back with ambiguous pronouns in
your "refutation".
There is no ambiguity at all. Just keep the 1-3 distinction in all the
uses.
Why? Could it be because by using them and the assumption of
uniqueness of identity they engender it makes it much easier to
prove the uniqueness of identity? After all it is well known that
proofs become somewhat easier to write if Bruno Marchal just assumes
what Bruno Marchal is trying to prove. And if ideas are unclear the
language should be too; a bad idea clearly expressed is easy to
identify as bad, but a bad idea expressed in murky language can
sometimes sound impressive if it's murky enough.
Stop doing irrelevant meta-remarks to hide your absence of arguments.
Focus on your point, if there is one, of move top step 4, if only to
get the idea.
> when you agree that after the duplication we are both copies in
the 3p view
Yes. And you once said something abut "the future 1p" of the
Helsinki man, well that description would fit 2 people because both
remember being the Helsinki man.
yes, and that is why the confirmation is asked to the 2 people. There
is nothing ambiguous. "W or M" win, "W & M" lost. Given the precise
question of the 1p views, viewed from the 1p-views, and not on the 3-1
views.
It is quasi primary school level.
> and only one of them, in the 1p view.
Only one? So which one is the phony, the Washington Man or the
Moscow Man?
Both are the phony. No problem as both see indeed only once city. That
was a correct prediction by the H-guy.
> I am happy you think it is a world class discovery, but let us be
modest, it is a reminder that the mind-body problem is not solved,
and that "science" has not decided between Aristotle and Plato. The
discovery (the thesis) is in the math part
I too have discovered a new sort of indeterminacy that involves math
and it is very very similar to the sort you discovered; I add 2 to
the number 3 and I add 8 to the number 3. The number 3 can't predict
if it will end up as a 5 or as a 11. I believe my discovery is just
as profound as yours. Not very.
So you accept that step 3 is a discovery? Nice. But to judge the
result, you have to move to step 4.
Bruno
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.
