On 23 Jul 2015, at 18:58, John Clark wrote:
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.
But Chris Peck, if I understood him correctly, seems to agree that in
QM-Everett, we keep the usual probability. Indeed Everett justifies
those probabilities, notably with MWI+Gleason theorem. And this uses
the comp FPI.
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.
It has been given, and we have agreed on it. We don't need a better
definition of "you", we need only to take into account that the
question is about the first person experience content, that is, the
first person experience from the first person experience pov itself.
As the experience W and M are incompatible, as you have agreed also,
"W & M" is directly ruled out. Nobody will experience from that 1-1
view being in the two cities at once. That follows easily from the
fact that the two brain copies are disconnected and cannot be aware of
each other in any 1p direct view (unless magical telepathy of course,
but we can't have it with the computationalist hypothesis and this
protocol.
> 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.
I don't think Chris Peck is saying that P(up) = P(down) = 1 in QM
(Everett or not). Of course this is as much ridiculous than to predict
"W and M" in step 3, as the subjective experience of seeing
simultaneously UP and DOWN, like W and M, are incompatible. To be
oneself in superposition does not lead to a blurred experience of the
two outcomes.
Sorry, but I have no clue how you can maintain "W and M", except by
confusing 1-you and 3-1-you.
In the math part, it is the confusion between []p and []p & p, which
has a long history in science and philosophy.
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.
