On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>And now that I have answered you question I repeat my question that you >> dodged: Who is traveling through time in a forward direction, Mr. John >> Clark or Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man? >> > > > Both are. Everyone is. > Then when Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man says "I will see Moscow" please explain exactly who the prediction is about. >> if just before the multiple duplications John Clark predicted that >> "you" will see X how could it be determined which one of the 6.02 *10^23 is >> Mr. You so we could ask Mr, You if he did really did see X and figure out >> if John Clark's prediction was correct? >> > > > John Clark will predict that one will see X1, and that all the other > Telmos will see all the other Xs. That prediction will be confirmed with > 100% accuracy. > Yes. So where is the indeterminacy in that? > If you ask the original Telmo to bet on a destination and he bets on X1, > the copy at X1 will tell you that he predicted correctly, > Yes. So where is the indeterminacy in that? > while the copies at the while the copies at the other Xs will tell you > that they were wrong. Xs will tell you that they were wrong. It wasn't wrong if the prediction was "Telmo will see X1" because every one of the 6.02 *10^23 Telmos can clearly see that Telmo did indeed see X1. If the prediction was "I will see X1" then there is no way to know if the prediction was correct or not because of the inherent ambiguity matter duplicating machines brings to personal pronouns. > > If you repeat the experiment several times, the Telmos will eventually > realize that there is a 1/6.02 *10^23 probability for each location, and > that they are in a state of uncertainty > You don't need exotic matter duplicating machines for this thought experiment because it's all just old fashioned conventional subjective uncertainty not the newer objective uncertainty found in Quantum Mechanics. The copies are uncertain about what they will see only because you have kept some information from them. You are in charge of the experiment, you are Monty Hall, you always knew with 100% certainty which door the car was behind, and you determined if each individual copy sees X1 or not and how information they had about what your decision would be. So Bruno's thought experiment is no deeper and has no more philosophical significance than a episode of "Let's Make a Deal". > the difference between Many Worlds and the duplication machines is that > the copies can interact and an outside observer can see several of the > copies. > And another difference is that personal pronouns work just fine in Many Worlds but matter duplication machines renders them useless in most circumstances. > But the John Clark who wrote the emails no longer exist. > I remember being him and that's good enough for me. > > Why is this not a problem for you with emails, not even with many > worlds, but it becomes a problem with duplication machines? > There is no existential problem, there is only a pronoun problem. If there will be 6.02 *10^23 copies of me tomorrow then I will certainly exist tomorrow, but I will no longer be unique, not one of those 6.02 *10^23 copies has more of a right to call himself Mr. I than another. > Further along the proof everything comes full circle, and you are > confronted with having to chose between comp (the mind can be replaced by > an equivalent computation at some correct substitution level) > Obviously true to my mind. > > and materialism -- in this specific case, the claim that position is an > aspect of fundamental reality, > Obviously ridiculous. > > I can't help but notice, tough, that your distaste for peer pressure is > quite selective. You are the one who likes to argue every new year that psi > phenomena do not exist because Nature and Science haven't published a paper > about them yet. > That is because I can't personally reproduce all the experiments in Nature and Science, but I know that the editors of Nature and Science have a very good (but not perfect) track record of not publishing junk science, so by induction I conclude that what I read is probably true. But Bruno performed no experiments, and with all the personal pronouns it very quickly became apparent that Bruno LITERALLY (not figuratively) didn't know what he was talking about. > To answer your question for the n-th time. John Clark the pre-duplication > man makes the prediction. Then [..] > Not so fast! First I need to know what you're talking about. Please specify EXACTLY what the prediction is, and for god's sake give the personal pronouns a rest. > I believe the arrow of time is seen as an open problem in physics. The arrow of time MUST exist if the universe was created in a very low entropy condition. How the universe was created in a low entropy condition is an open problem. 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.
