On 02 Jul 2015, at 13:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jul 2015, at 06:48, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Jun 2015, at 01:27, Bruce Kellett wrote:
My main thrust all along has been to test the various logical
weak points in Bruno's argument,
Thanks for the rethorical tricks to remind us that you have fail
to find any flaw.
The flaws are that you use rhetorical tricks -- your arguments are
not valid.
Show the flaw. repeating vague negative statement makes me think
that you have no argument.
and to point out where his arguments are either mere assertions,
or nothing more than pseudo-arguments, that may be motivational,
but amount to far less than proof.
Take Sane2014, and just give me the first sentence that you don't
understand. ...or of any of my other papers or post.
It is not that I don't understand -- I understand only too well.
The point is that I disagree that you have made anything like a
valid argument, or that any of your conclusions are in any way
convincing.
The argument is a deductive chain. You have to tell me where you
disagree, or you are just doing bad philosophy.
Can you confirm clearly that you agree with step 0 to 6?
Before we go there, can you explain in simple terms what you mean by
the first person view, or the 1p perspective? Do you mean what a
person can ascertain by introspection? Or what a person can
ascertain for themselves, by whatever means are available?
For the UDA reasoning, like for Everett, we don't need a sophisticated
definition of the "first person". We define it by the owner of the
diary that the experiencer takes with him/her in the teleportation box.
In the iterated 3 times experiences, we are lead to 8 different first
person experience, easily bijective with the 8 diaries sums up by
respectively the eight 3 bits binary sequences WWW, WWM, ... MMM.
For AUDA, I use a quite different strategy and define the first person
by the knower, and I define the knower by using the Theaetetus' simple
idea to conjunct the justified belief (modeled by löbian provability)
with the truth. The incompleteness phenomenon literally invites the
machine to take that distinction into account. But we are not there
yet, so for the UD Argument, like for Everett QM, the content of the
diaries, thanks to those precise protocol, is enough for that notion.
Sometimes people argue against this by proposing more complex
definition, but they do the 1004 mistake, adding useless precision,
which only hide the validity of a reasoning which does not depend on
those precisions.
So, in simple term, we are in the context of self-duplication thought
experiments. People are asked to predict what will happen in some
protocol, and we look at the diaries of the survivors if their
prediction were fulfilled or not.
Bruno
Bruce
What about step 7 (it is trickier than it looks).
Then we will discuss step 8 in detail.
If you are interested of course, which sometimes I doubt, as you
don't seem aware of both the complexity of fundamental cognitive
science and in theoretical computer science.
Bruno
--
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.
