On 01 Sep 2014, at 14:58, Pierz wrote:
What is bizarre about John's objections is that it, if he really
can't accept FPI, then he can't accept MWI either,
Yes, that points has been made clear, many times, by Quentin and others.
yet that theory is perfectly straightforward and clear, and, at
least if the informal straw poll cited in Tegmark's recent book is
anything to be believed, possibly the dominant interpretation of QM
at the moment. And if it isn't yet, it probably will be within a few
years. Even if not, is John seriously going to contend that MWI is
nonsensical scientific "baby talk"? He is obviously a highly
intelligent man, and I don't believe for a second that he can't
grasp the logic of MWI.
Nor of the FPI.
For some reason he fakes not to understand the point. He asks for
precisions, and when we remind him of the precisions, he said that
then it is trivial, but is unable to justify why he does not go to the
next step.
What comes across from these absurd, circular exchanges is the very
opposite of rationality. Fundamentally John just hates your claim to
original ideas
Which I have never made. I entirely focus on the subject. Only in "the
amoeba's secret" I was asked by the publishers to tell the story of
the thesis.
My philosophy forbid me to claim originality, it is not just part of
science. It is the subject of history of science, an interesting
topic, out of my topic.
and the fact that people take those ideas seriously and find them
interesting. I don't know where all the rage comes from. Maybe being
right all the time makes you that way.
I think some people have programmed into themselves simple rules like
"Any text containing words like
consciousness
mind
soul
artficial intelligence
computer
quantum
god
with different combination of ""and " and "or" between them, is
crackpot.
So they mocks things and when they are shown having fall in the
"literalist" error, not having seen the abstract relation which does
not depends on the terming for being testable, they can't admit having
been shown wrong on something so much obvious, if only they would have
listen to me once. I have never met them, ever. It is a mixture of
autism, perversion and cowardliness.
Where does the rage comes from? Ouh la la!....
Most of the time the rage comes from an unsolved trauma combined with
a lack of self-confidence or its opposite over-confidence.
BTW, I just finished The Amoeba's Secret. It was like wading into
deep water one step at a time. The water was up to my chin and I was
just keeping my nose above water, skipping on one toe a little when
the bottom got a bit deeper than I could reach. And then all of a
sudden you went over the continental shelf. And so I had to just
kind of swim over that chapter until I reached shore on the other
side. Hmm. Guess I'll have to dig up that modal logic lesson I
missed on the list a while back.
The modal thing is really only a tool which helps. The key thing is
machine's ability of self-reference, and the nuance necessarily
brought by the incompleteness phenomenon, of which the machine can be
aware (with reasonable definitions).
Still, it was fascinating.
Glad you feel so, the subject is fascinating.
Bruno
On Sunday, August 24, 2014 8:58:24 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Aug 2014, at 03:59, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> By definition you accept computationalism, as you accept "yes
doctor" + Church thesis.
Yes, although I can't prove it I think the chances that
computationalism is true is about the same as the probability that
I am not the only conscious being universe,and that is pretty damn
high. As for "comp", I neither believe nor disbelieve in it, I am
just bored by it.
>>> but neither evoloution, nor anything 3p can prove that comp is
correct,
>> Fine, so "comp" isn't correct,
> that does not follow logically
Fine, so "comp" is correct,
> We know also, as we assume comp [...]
> I don't assume your baby talk jargon or your silly homemade
acronyms.
> Could you once stop making useless distracting ad hominem non
sensical remark?
I would be glad to, just stop speaking scientific baby talk and
stop writing silly homemade acronyms.
>>>> before I can give you that precise answer I need to know
what you mean by "the H-guy". Does it mean:
1) John Clark?
2) The fellow currently experiencing Helsinki?
>>> Now you regress again, and we will cycle. Just consult sane04,
the step 3 protocol is clear and has never change since the
beginning.
>> So rather than simply answering my question with #1 or #2 you
just say the answer, whatever the hell it is, has always been the
same and then give a link to the same long paper that is full of
imprecise vague pronouns.
> What is vague? You have already asked. I define precisely the 1-
you (content of the diary you can find in your pocket, with the
usual indexical use of "your"), and the 3-you (content of the diary
of an external observer, not entring in the tele-boxes).
So yet again rather than simply answering my question with #1 or #2
you just continue with more bafflegab
So I ask again, does "the H guy" refer to #1 "John Clark", or does
it refer to #2 "the fellow currently experiencing Helsinki"?
I have already answered this many times,
Then please answer it just one more time. Pretty please, it will
only take you one ASCII symbol to do so, either a "1" or a "2". I
don't need another dissertation, I just need a 1 or a 2.
> Non sense. It can't be 100% Mars and 25% hell.
Yes it can if you're dealing with adjectives and not nouns,
adjectives like John Clark. I can definitely send a green something
to Mars and maybe send a green something to hell, So there is a
100% chance there is something green on Mars and a 25% chance there
is something green in hell.
Ad hominem remarks, rethorical tricks, and you end for the 1000th
time with your usual confusion between first person and third
person, that you abstract away before complaining on lack on
precision.
All this has been explained many times before, and I will nor more
reply to your "objection", unless you succeed in convincing someone
else to explain it in a post which focus on the subject.
Bruno
John K Clark
because hell doesn't sound like much fun. But that's just John
Clark, Bruno Marchal may feel differently and there is no
disputing matters of taste.
> b) with a non-destructive eavesdropping?
Then it doesn't matter if Eve intercept things or not because she
doesn't interfere and lets things proceed as originally planned,
so there is a 100% chance that John Clark will remain on Earth and
a 100% chance John Clark will go to Mars; provided that Mars is a
nice place John Clark would not hesitate in pushing that button.
In this case it is teleportation, so the "original" on Earth is
always supposed to be destroyed, but I will not quibble on this.
I will just ask you how do you will explain this to the "John
Clark" reconstituted by Eve in Hell? Certainlmy, he will think that
his previous reasoning was wrong, OK?
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.
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.
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.
