On 25 Jun 2015, at 17:31, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
>> because John Clark HAS BEEN DUPLICATED and there are
now two John Clarks it would not be expected that just one interview
would settle the question of what cities John Clark saw. The first
interviewee says "I am John Clark and I see Moscow". The second
interviewee says "I am John Clark and I see Washington". So
Quentin, from the above information even a man with a room
temperature IQ such as yourself should be able to answer the
question "what cities did John Clark see?".
> That's never has been the question..
In this thought experiment that is the only question that is
not gibberish.
> The question has always bear on the 1st person view,
If you HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED then there is no such thing
as "the" 1st person view, there is only "a" 1st person view.
I mean... what the hell do you think the word "duplicated" means?
But what do you think a first person experience in the (iterated)
protocol is?
*ALL* first person experience will remind in their diary a *precise*
unique history, like WWMWMMW.
So, assuming comp, there is no mystery, paradoxes, or ambiguity: with
probability 1, all the accessible consistent extensions (in that
protocol) will *experiences* (described in their respective diaries)
a particular but arbitrary, random, sequence of events.
If you accept it in Everett, explain us what the difference with the
this "classical" duplication? What about a classical proviso where the
protocol guaranties no interaction between the copies? And how could a
universal machine ever makes that difference?
You add magic to invent ambiguities where things are crystal clear. If
you understand it on Everett, I tell you what: it is the same for
comp. It is easier. It does not need that non obvious notion of
quantum superposition.
Without magic (adding a non turing emulable element) a Turing
universal machine cannot distinguish a classical duplication from a
quantum superposition, and indeed, that was Everett plausible
motivation to take the "other" terms of the wave at the start.
With comp, the same occurs, by taking "seriously" a tiny part of the
arithmetical reality, the computer science theoretical part of it.
Your non understanding (?) defies my imagination.
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.
