On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> That is neither right nor wrong because it is not clear what "the >> probability" refers to; the probability of *who* seeing spin up? > > > > > Oh, You said us that in the MWI there were no problem as the copies cannot > met, and so the use of probability makes sense in QM. > Quentin asked if the probability of "you" seeing spin up and seeing spin down is both 1. John Clark doesn't know how to answer that except to say if MWI is correct then the probability of John Clark seeing spin up is 1 and the probability of John Clark seeing spin down is 1. John Clark knows that's not exactly what was asked but if a better definition of "you" is given a better answer will be provided. > > > OK you did change your mind > I change my mind all the time, but not in this case. > > > and I guess this is to hide the fact that your argument against the FPI > and Chris Peck's argument would contradict each other. > There may come a time when I disagree with Chris Peck, if and when that day comes I will not hesitate to say so. You may have noticed that I'm not particularly shy in that regard. 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.
