On 15 Apr 2015, at 00:15, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
> I predict that I will win 1 million dollar by tomorrow. I know my
prediction is correct because this will happen in one of the
branches of the multiverse. Do you agree with this statement?
No I do not agree because matter duplicating machines do not exist
yet so if I check tomorrow the laws of physics will allow me to find
only one chunk of matter that fits the description of Mr. I (that is
a chunk of matter that behaves in a Telmomenezesian way), and that
particular chunk of matter does not appear to have a million
dollars. However if the prediction was "tomorrow Telmo Menezes will
win a million dollars" then I would agree, provided of course that
the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true.
> You are trying to play a game that is absurd, which is to deny the
first person view.
That is ridiculous, only a fool would deny the first person view and
John Clark is not a fool. Mr.I can always look to the past and see
one unique linear sequence of Mr.I's leading up to him, and Mr. I
can remember being every one of them. But things are very different
looking to the future, nothing is unique and far from being linear
things could hardly be more parallel with a astronomical and
possibly infinite number of branching, and Mr. I can't remember
being any of them. And that is why the sense of first person
identity has nothing to do with our expectations of the future but
is only a function of our memories of the past.
Unfortunately, prediction and probabilities concerns the future.
> You use your crusade against pronouns
If Telmo Menezes thinks that any objection in the use of personal
pronouns in thought experiments designed to illuminate the
fundamental nature of personal identity
No, we agree on the personal identity before asking the prediction
question. The duplication experiement is not designed to illuminate
the nature of personal identity, which is made clear beforehand, with
the 1p and 3p diaries.
You often says this, and never reply to the fact that this has been
debunked.
is absurd then call John Clark's bluff and simply stop using them;
then if Telmo Menezes can still express ideas on this subject
clearly and without circularity it would prove that John Clark's
concern that people who used such pronouns were implicitly stating
what they were trying to prove were indeed absurd.
You say that you accept the notion of first person, but what telmo
meant is that you stop using it in the WM-prediction, where you agree
that you will be in the two places in the 3p view, with unique 1p, so
the P = 1/2 is just obvious. It is not deep: to this why it will be
deep, you need to move on step 4, step 5, etc.
>> Monty Hall knows that when the Helsinki Man in the sealed box in
Moscow opens the door and sees Moscow the Moscow Man will be born
from the ashes of the Helsinki Man,
>The Helsinki Man in the sealed box in Moscow knows that too. He was
fully informed of the protocol of the experiment.
OK but it doesn't matter if he knows the protocol of the experiment
or not, regardless of where he is until The Helsinki Man sees Moscow
or Moscow the Helsinki Man will remain The Helsinki Man. So who will
become the Moscow Man? The one who sees Moscow will become the
Moscow Man.
Yes, but that is the H-man too, with the 3-1 view. Nothing is
ambiguous, once we understand and APPLY the 1/3 distinction. That is
what you never seem to do.
Oh well, the good thing about tautologies is that they're always true.
>>> Verb tenses also become problematic if you introduce time
machines.
>> Douglas Adams had something to say about this in The Hitchhikers
Guide to the Galaxy:
> Yes, I love it too. Doesn't it worry you a bit that your
grammatical argument is so similar to one found in an absurdist work
of fiction?
No because if time machines actually existed then it wouldn't be
absurd at all, the English language really would need a major
overhaul in the way it uses verb tenses. And if matter duplicating
machines existed the English language really would need a major
overhaul about the way it uses personal pronouns. The only
difference is that if the laws of physics are what we think they are
then time machines are NOT possible, but if the laws of physics are
what we think they are then matter duplicating machines ARE possible.
> Show me how to do it. Describe quantum uncertainty according to
the MWI without personal pronouns. I know you will be able to do it
because:
a) you like the MWI
b) you hate personal pronouns
CASE #1
Telmo Menezes shoots one photon at 2 slits with a photographic plate
behind the slits. As the photon approaches the slits the entire
universe splits into 2 with the photon going through the left slit
in one universe and the right slit in the other universe. Being part
of the universe Telmo Menezes splits too although neither of the
Telmos knows which slit the photon went through. When the photons
hit the photographic plate the photon no longer exists in either
universe so the universes are identical again and the universes
merge back together. When Telmo Menezes develops the plate the
beginnings of a interference pattern is seen which is consistent
with a single photon going through both slits.
CASE #2
The experiment is the same except that this time there is a sensor
next to each slit so that Telmo Menezes known what slit the photon
went through. As the photon approaches the slits the universe splits
in two and Mr.Telmo Menezes Left Slit sees the photon go through the
left slit and Mr.Telmo Menezes Right Slit sees the photon go through
the right slit. When the photons hit the photographic plate the
photons no longer exist in either universe but the 2 universes are
still not identical because Mr.Telmo Menezes Left Slit has a
different physical structure in Mr.Telmo Menezes Left Slit's brain
(and thus a different memory) than Mr.Telmo Menezes Right Slit. So
the two universes remain separate. When Mr.Telmo Menezes Left Slit
develops the photographic plate a spot is found directly behind the
left slit which is consistent with the photon going through the left
slit only, and when Mr.Telmo Menezes Right Slit develops the
photographic plate a spot is found directly behind the right slit
which is consistent with the photon going through the right slit only.
And no damn pronouns.
> And no damn uncertainty
Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing that Bruno
had discovered something new under the sun, a new sort of uncertainty
Oh, so you agree with the indeterminacy.
It is new, I'm afraid. Unless you say that you die in the duplication
process, or that there is telepathy between the copies, the personal,
1-views, cannot be determined, and this without any non determinism in
the 3p view, and without invoking QM. Just look at the content of the
diary of each copy. So it is different from the classical coin, and
from the quantum coin. It invokes self-duplication, which was new too
at the time I developed this (btw).
But the "newness" is not the topic. The real question now is: does
that indeterminacy change, or not, if we introduce a delay in Moscow
(say) reconstitution?
Please answer this, or justify why you don't answer, given that you
agree with the indeterminacy.
Bruno
John K Clark
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.
