On 26 Oct 2014, at 18:58, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> Like I explained to you more than once, Everett was interested in
predictions but you are interested in consciousness,
> That is not relevant for the point you made.
Like hell it isn't! Everett was talking about predictions, you're
talking about the sense of self and that has zero to do with
predictions, good ones or bad. As for Quentin, he's talking about
insults.
Unless you postulate a unique little universe, all matter of
prediction can be verified only from a first person perspective, and
that is why Everett introduce a notion of subjective probability, not
in the Bayesian sense, but in the computationalist sense. This is
explained also by Wheeler.
> Quentin validly convince everybody that if your refutation was
valid for the classical comp FPI, then it is valid on Everett too.
I hope that is not true, if it is it doesn't say much about the
quality of the people on this list because Quentin's idea of a
reasoned argument is "John Clark is a poo poo head".
Yes, but Quentin (and others) are tired of your enormous bad faith
about step 3. Everything is described in the third person, but you
avoid interviewing the copies. you talk like you belief that after a
2^n self-duplication, you would be blurred into an indeterminate
anomaly, but all the vast majority of the John Clark interviewed
witness having seen white noise, in fact it is easy to show they could
distinguish a classical iterated duplication, and a quantum one.
> that is simply not relevant for the use of the FPI
I don't see what it has to do with the Foreign Policy Institute
either.
One joke is funny.
To repeat it infinitely often is boring.
You know perfectly well what is the FPI, but for the newbees: the FPI
is the First Person Indeterminacy notion, which is entailed in a
classical context, from a first person perspective, in the case of
self-duplication. This is explained in the beginning of the sane04 paper
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
and is the thing which motivates me to do mathematics studies instead
of biology or philosophy.
Then the translation of UDA in the language of the machine adopts a
different notion of indeterminacy, purely arithmetically defined, but
still motivated by the FPI. In fact it is the particular case of P= 1,
(the intensional nuance []p & <>p, with p sigma_1).
You have convinced 0 person, or if there is one who get your point, I
am willing to listen, but up to now I have been able to debunk all
your arguments, which relies in criticizing something for being vague,
and mocking the simple notions used (like 1p and 3p pov) which
precisely handle the ambiguities you mention. Or, when you got the
point and cannot hide it, the critics are ad hominem, and does not
justify why you don't tackle the step 4 of the UD argument.
Nor do you ever mention the proper theoretical computer science which
provides a way to understand the math and the problem, without the FPI.
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.
