On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 5:09:49 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Pierz <pie...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> > > >> My point isn't that MWI is true. My point is you understand it and how it >> leads to the appearance of indeterminacy in a completely determined system. >> >> Indeterminacy is a 1-p illusion >> > > It's either an illusion or it is not > > and peepee is not involved. >
And you wonder why people think you're a troll. > And it is an experimental fact that > Bell's inequality > is violated therefore we know for certain that if things really are > deterministic then even stranger things must be true; either things are not > realistic (an electron is not spinning clockwise or > counterclockwise until it is measured, nothing exists until it is observed) > or non-local (forget the butterfly effect, a hurricane arrived in Miami > today because one year in the **future** a butterfly in Australia will > flap his wings). > So we know for sure that Einstein's idea that > things > are realistic > , > local > , > and deterministic can > not > be correct > , at least one of them must be false and all 3 could be. > > >> >>> If the multiverse really exists then that explains quantum >>> indeterminacy, but Bruno claims he has found a new sort of indeterminacy >>> independent of both the quantum type and also of the Godel/Turing type and >>> I don't think he has. >>> >> >> > >> To my mind, the logic is completely isomorphic with MWI. >> > > MWI says everything that can happen > to you will happen to you, so you can see everything that can happen; the > only way these 2 things can be consistent with experience is if there are > lots and lots of "yous" but the laws of physics only allow an observer (or > a you) to see one of them. And that is why Bruno loves pronouns and that is > why despite the criticism Bruno insists on continuing to use the word > "you"; pronouns like that disguise the fact that "you" is not singular, it > is plural. > Bruno knows that observer or 'you' is plural, and in fact that plurality is the basis of the first person indeterminacy. If you're an amoeba and you divide, there are now two amoebas who remember having been you (if amoebas had memories). That's it. Post duplication there's an illusion of indeterminacy about which amoeba 'you' became, but the pronoun here is just a figure of speech. I'm starting to think from this and the statements below that you actually have misunderstood what Bruno is claiming. In the above statement you say that the laws of physics only allow you to see one universe. In Bruno's formulation it's not the laws of physics but the definition of the observer as comprised in the digital state of some machine, that has now been replicated. Obviously such a duplicated observer can't observe the other machine's environment or internal state, so the same separation has been achieved as the laws of physics achieve in MWI. No 'peepee' involved. > > Admittedly Bruno does say "THE 1p you" but unfortunately always neglects > to mention which 1p you. Well OK Bruno does say > THE 1p you > who wrote all that stuff in the diary, but that does no good because > after the duplication Bruno is unable to point to the one guy who wrote all > that stuff in the diary. > > Don't be daft. There are two people writing in diaries after the duplication, and Bruno knows it. You've misunderstood the claim. > > >> If Bruno is claiming there is some striking originality about his idea of >> FPI then I'd point to Everett and say, that guy thought of it first. >> > > Everett said nothing about consciousness and didn't need to, one great > strength of Many Worlds is that unlike some other quantum interpretations > it doesn't need to explain what consciousness is or how it works because > consciousness has nothing to do with it. Bruno's great discovery is in > finding out that sometimes "you" doesn't know what "you" will see next, but > I think Og The Caveman beat him to the punch on that by a few years. > You have the wit of a Wilde. > > >> > >> Obviously Bruno's argument hypothesises this first-person indeterminacy >> occurring in a context of computationally defined observers (whether in a >> physical machine, a duplication experiment, or pure mathematics) rather >> than the multiverse, but that context is irrelevant to the question of the >> validity of the logic >> > > But it is not > irrelevant to the question > of pronouns and Bruno's arguments are always filled wall to wall with > pronouns. When discussing the multiverse the very laws of physics ensure > that pronouns cause no ambiguity, but that is certainly not the case with > people duplicating machines. > Stage magicians use pretty > assistants > to distract > the audience > > from > their sleight of hand, Bruno uses pronouns. > > Bruno says that c > omputationalism > can't predict what *YOU* will see next so there must be some aspect of > consciousness that the > computational theory of mind > can not explain, > Say what? Say WHAT? Bruno's argument is based purely on a computational theory of mind! It's an extrapolation of the consequences of that assumption. He is not claiming what you say at all, and if you think that, you've been arguing with a ghost since this fire began in the Holocene epoch because you can't LISTEN. And Bruno's argument needs no pronouns to go through. He has defined mathematically what he means by an observer (a Löbian self-referencing machine), and step 3 can be diagrammed or otherwise formalised easily with nary a pronoun in sight. He is simply saying that the multiplication of observers, theoretically possible under a computational theory of mind, leads to an appearance of indeterminacy for those observers due the "decoherence" of their individual perspectives (to borrow the analogous concept from QM). Tegmark has made the same observation, saying that the multiplication of observer moments creates randomness (and the reduction of them creates immortality, subjectively, a la quantum suicide). Man, you are way off here. > > but in reality what > c > omputationalism > (or anything else) can't explain is what the hell Bruno means by "you". > > John K Clark > > BTW, *I* am not getting drawn into this any further. I am sworn off step 3 from now on. I know you're not stupid, so I concluded before that you were ill-intentioned. This post of yours leads me to the conclusion that you are merely so arrogant that you're incapable of listening, and as a result you've been jousting with a straw man without even knowing it. I suggest you get it straight what you *think* Bruno is claiming. I bet that you've got it wrong. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
