On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 04 Aug 2014, at 18:37, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> In both diaries, those who predicted 'no break of symmetry', >>>> >>> >>> >> Who in hell predicted no break of symmetry? >>> >> >> > You. >> > > BULLSHIT. > > >> One will see Moscow and one will not, nobody thinks that is >>> symmetrical. If things were symmetrical there would only be one person >>> regardless of how many bodies there were; there needs to be a break in >>> symmetry for the concepts of "you" and "me" to be meaningful. >>> >> >> > Good. You disagreed with this some time ago. >> > > BULLSHIT. > > > just a very simple case of first person indeterminacy. >> > > Which is just a pompous and needlessly complex way of saying "I don't > know". > > > You progress. > > Precisely: I don't know if it will be W or M, but I know for sure > (assuming comp and the protocol) that it will something in the set {W, M}. > > > > > > we get that first person indetermlinacy from logic and the working of a >> computer >> > > The idea that we can't know what we will see or do next came from that > great thinker Og the caveman and he used induction not logic to develop it; > > > Boltzman killed himself as people mocked his "ridiculous idea" of bringing > statistics in classical deterministic physics. > > Conceptually, that kind of indeterminacy brought by Boltzman is accepted > today, and is explained by the laws of big numbers. > > Then quantum mechanics seemed to introduce an stronger form of > indeterminacy, but the many-worlders know better, and take it as a FPI on > the universal wave or matrix. > The strongest form of QM indeterminacy is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Does comp predict that? Richard > > Then the comp FPI is the simplest and strongest form of indeterminacy. It > does not need the quantum physics assumption, and it does not need big > numbers (although they can help). but it raizes a problem, as eventually, > we have to explain the quantum wave from the FPI on arithmetic (but this > needs step 4, 5, 6, 7/8). > > Again, the point is that if you accept this, the real question is: do you > accept that the indeterminacy on what you (the H-guy) can expect remains > unchanged when we add a delay on one branch. I see that you snip the very > question I asked you. > > > > > he remembered that he didn't know what he would do next in the past and he > figured that trend, just like everything else, would probably continue into > the future. Only much later did Turing discover that the same conclusion > could be derived from logic. > > > Unsolvability and uncomputability leads to other form of indeterminacies, > in the long run of a program execution. it has nothing to do with the > self-duplication indeterminacy (even if both used diagonalisation when made > technical, but the use of the diagonalization is different). > Again, I already explained this to you. > > > > > > the guy in Moscow see moscow, and not washington, you have to agree >> that his [HIS?!!!] prediction "w & m" was wrong >> > > > As usual Bruno Marchal can't continue without a ambiguous pronoun fix, > in this case it's "his". > > > His is obviously you, when you are still not duplicated, in Helsinki. > You come back on this point infinitely often, yet I told you, that I > accompany you, going to Helsinki in plane, and I ask you what do you expect > to live as experience, in the usual sense of you, before the duplication. > Now, above you did answer "I don't know". That is a progress compared to > your older symmetric "W and M", which a kid in high school can show to be > refuted by any of your consistent continuations. > > > > > > > is that possible when we assume comp? What do you think? >> > > What do I think? I think that I don't give a rat's ass about "comp". > > > Here you snip the whole step 4 question. And your answer is out of topics > as nobody give a rat's ass about you taste. > > Sorry, but your failure to grasp UDA seems to be due to your prejudice > against my person (cf your recent lies on me), or at least your total > unwillingness to proceed, despite understanding well the question, and > getting the answer (recurrently). > > Each time you suddenly do understand the step 3, you hand wave with "too > much easy", "trivial", "obvious", "caveman" ... > but then just go to the next step, please, or explain why you don't, and > still criticize the conclusion. > > 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/d/optout. > > > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
