On 30 Mar 2015, at 04:20, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 9:10 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
But if it were a world of copying machines and John K Clark says "I"
expect to see Moscow tomorrow then who the hell knows what "I" means.
>The same is true of the MWI.
No it is not the same. In the MWI if John Clark says "tomorrow I
will see the electron spin up" then tomorrow there is a clear way
for Liz to determine if the prediction was correct or not because
the the laws pf physics guarantee that Liz will find no ambitious in
the meaning of the personal pronoun "I".
But in the copying machine stuff if John Clark says "tomorrow I will
see Moscow" there is no way that Liz or anybody else can determine
if the prediction was correct or not because nobody knows who the
hell "I" is.
We don't say "I expect to see both spin up and spin down" or "I
expect the cat to be both dead and alive" - even if we believe the
MWI to be true.
That true. in the MWI we don't say that, but even if we did the
statement would not be gibberish it would just turn out to be wrong.
But in the copying machine world "I will see Moscow tomorrow" is
equivalent to "klogknee will see Moscow tomorrow" because both "I"
and "klogknee" are not defined.
But then you have to say already "no" to the doctor in step zero, and
abandon teleportation in step 1.
You talk like if there was an insuperable difficulty brought by the
duplication. But on the contrary, with computationalism, and the quite
simple definition of first person (equiavlent, in the QM setting with
Everett definition of "subjective"), we need only to interview *all*
duplicated persons. It is easy to count that almost all will say white
noise in the n-iterated duplication.
Of course, you might decide to predict that the W-M sequence you will
live will describe the binary digits of PI. But with the definition of
first person given, that is not a good prediction, because it is
satisfied at stage n by only by one successor, when predicting that
'you will not be PI' is satisfied by the corresponding 2^n - 1, for
all stage n.
You seem to agree that a beam of photons split, on the polarizer, in
two beam when prepared in the relevant superposition state.
From this I can build a though experience where you are told that you
will be either looking at a quantum superposition state or in
classical self-duplication experience. You would not been able to see
the difference, without violating computationalism.
Wake up, John, the *real* difficulties are in step 7 and step 8.
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 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/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 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/d/optout.
