On 06 Aug 2015, at 02:39, Pierz wrote:
Mein Gott, this argument reminds me of the fire in Siberia that
started burning in the Holocene and is still going. Why do you keep
taking the troll bait Bruno?
Because it is not under my back, and I want to make clear that the
person who have a problem with this are troll.
JC is a physicist so I presume he understands Everett. Ergo, he
understands, in principle, first person indeterminacy.
See the attempt by Quentin and others to make John C realizing this,
but he answers by the same hand-waving method, confirming (that's the
goal of answering) that he is a troll.
He just loves tormenting you.
Possible. But then why? Jealousy? Inability to say "I was wrong"?
I try to understand such "bad faith" as this might make the difference
between coming back to the scientific attitude in theology next
century or next millennium. My goal is harm reduction, and the sooner
we can be serious on this, the less useless suffering for humans.
You can ask the simple question: if the quantum state evolves
deterministically where does randomness come from according to MWI?
I'd like to hear JC's answer to that. If he says it's due to
multiple versions of the observer ending up in different branches of
the multiverse, he's shown he understands. If he refuses to
acknowledge MWI as a valid account due to his pronoun concerns, then
fine, maybe he should publish a refutation of Everett to that
effect. I'm sure the physics world would be fascinated to learn of
its error.
John Clark has given already both answers, and has oscillate between
accepting the FPI o-and rejecting it. When he accepts it, he insist it
is trivial and does not deserve the Nobel Prize (like if that was on
the table!), but fail to explain why he still does not address the
next step in the reasoning. I think that to avoid this, he knows
prefer to stick on his 1p3p-difference abstraction of.
Keep in mind that I got the 1p-indeterminacy more than 40 years ago,
and that I have never had any problem in explaining it to scientist.
But then some scientist decided that it was philosophy, and hired some
(non-analytical) philosopher who pretended that the FPI does not
exist. As I have never been able to met them, I felt frustated (for 40
years) so I still try to see where is the problem: and JC helps a lot
in showing that the problem is simply its inability, or unwillingness,
to take the 1p/3p difference into account in the question and
verification. But he has show to grasp the difference, so it is
probably just unwillingness.
Then the question remains: why such unwillingness? I'm afraid it is
just jealousy or something of that type. each post by JC confirms
that, and it *might* someday help people to understand how
obscurantist people can be on this subject.
Then JC, like Jean-Paul Delahaye, makes me think that maybe the FPI
does deserve the Nobel Prize after all. If it is that subtle to grasp
for grown up, it might be worth to make clearer. After all, all the
rest of the work exploit that FPI. Tegmark and Schmidhuber missed it,
as Tegmark confirms by "rediscovering it" in his book (as Jason Resch
quoted some times ago).
So, the FPI is certainly very simple, but the 1p/3p difference is not
that simple for some physicists and philosophers (sic), as the way JC
and some part of the academical world have illustrated since long.
Another problem, is that his post confused people, so we have to
answer them for possible new bees.
Now, anyone can ask more interesting question, or discuss other
points... It is not difficult to filter the thread if annoyed by the
admittedly boring repetition of Clarks last attempt to ridicule the
notion.
It is "holiday". The list is quite, so take this as a little snack,
like an attempt to understand the psychology of trolls and harassers,
or just skip those posts, and enjoy the sun and the beach :)
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.
