On 28 Jul 2015, at 18:33, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Forget about giving the correct prediction, a prediction
can't even be described by any means. Bruno thinks we can repeat the
experiment and compile statistics from it and then compare the
number obtained from experiment with the theoretical prediction,
but who exactly was the prediction about? If the prediction was
about Jason Resch one number is obtained, If the prediction
is about the man currently experiencing Helsinki a different
number is obtained, If the prediction was about the
Moscow Man a third number is obtained, If the prediction
was about the Washington Man yet another number is obtained,
and if the prediction was about "you" no number at all is obtained
because Bruno doesn't know how to give a consistent meaning to the
personal pronoun "you".
> If I understand what you say above, your position is that the
question has no answer?
My position is that there can't be an answer if there is no
question. What EXACTLY is the question?
The question is asked to any entity, or machines, before they undergo
a duplication.
The question is: what do you expect to live.
Or, what do expect to write in your personal diary, when describing
the city behind the door of the reconstitution box, diary that you
take with you in the teleportation box.
Then the experience is done. By the definition of the first person
notion, we have to interview them all to verify the predictions.
You have agreed that we don't die in such duplication, and that we
cannot have the experience of being simultaneously in the two cities.
That does not leave much choice.
When you are in Helsinki, "you" means the guy I am asking the question
to. He knows (or expect, assuming he believes in comp, and trust the
doctor's level choice) that he will survive, which means that he will
find itself reconstituted in some box, in front of a door, with some
city behind, which one he cannot know.
The prediction is about what you will live from inside, from your
first person perspective, which here is the city that you will see
when opening a door.
Your "and", in
"(I am in W) "&" (I am in M)"
is Girard linear notion of "and". It is a sort of tensor product.
Nothing to do with the boolean or intuitionist "and" which are used
here.
In step 3 the question is about the boolean relation on the
experience lived by the experiencer. And computationalism does not
leave any choice: the only subjective (first person) experience
available are "I open(ed) the door and see (saw) Moscow" together
with "I open(ed) the door and see (saw) Moscow", and that is what
will be written in the personal diary. It confirms the ignorance of
the Helsinky guy and the good idea to say "W v M".
The Girard linear or tensorial "and" does not describe a mind state
(which are described by Boolean or intuitionistic logic). It simply
does not apply to any of the possible first person experience
available when the level was correctly chosen.
That is interesting, the 1p-3p confusion forces you to do a Boole/
Girard type of confusion.
Conclusion: the validity of step 3 remains untouched.
You are just confusing people by ... adding confusions, made possible
by not using the definitions given at the start.
When will you calm down enough to remain cold and read what I say.
What if the verbiage and the pee-pee was not verbiage nor pee-pee, but
on the contrary, what you have to dig a little bit more about?
But thanks for making me realize that 1p-3p confusion entails a Boole/
Girard confusion.
So an understanding of the Boole/Girard difference helps for the
understanding of the 1p-3p difference, which is indeed what such self-
duplication experiences illustrates.
Bruno
PS And what about the math part? Where does the doubt about that come
from? May be you don't believe in the Isle of Knight and Knaves,
perhaps? Reread Smullyan's chapter "The Heart of the Matter",
generalize using Church-Thesis, then comp and the UD will be modeled
by the restriction of the arithmetical interpretation to the sigma_1
sentences. To get the auto-reference on that you need to add, to G,
the axiom "p -> []p" (p -> Bp with Smullyan's notation).
Hmm, I guess you need a bit more than Forever undecided. Read Boolos
1979. The math eliminates the needs of the thought experiences, but it
needs to solve many technical difficulties, luckily solved by some
sequences of theorems you need to study. The arguments in eight step
is an easier shortcut to get the main things: an idea of how to
formulate the mind body problem.
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.
