Le 15 août 2015 23:50, "John Clark" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> And the question is on the "pure" 1-view, like in "what do you expect >> [...] > > > You again! John Clark expects that > Bruno Marchal > > will continue to use words in the "proof" that implicitly assumes the very thing it's trying to prove. > > >> > >> 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again and again ... > > > Not one person on planet Earth is or has ever been confused by the difference between 1p and 3p, but EVERYBODY on planet Earth (especially > Bruno Marchal > ) > is confused about what the hell > 1-1p and the 3-1p > is supposed to mean. > >> > >> everyone will asks themselves how you were unable to grasp the FPI, > > > And not one person on planet Earth has failed to realize that sometimes they don't know what the future will bring. > >>> >> >>> I never use "comp" and never will until I know what it means and I don't and neither do you. >> >> >> > >> See the definition in any of my paper, or in the archive. > > > I'm not interested in your definition, usage is always vastly more important than definitions and I have been unable to extract one particle of consistent meaning from the usage of your homemade word "comp" > >> >> > >> Comp is the doctrine according to which the brain is turing emulable > > > > That's > computationalism > not "comp". > I don't know what "comp" means but I do know that if it means anything at all it's certainly not > computationalism > . > >>> > >>> STOP USING PRONOUNS!! >> >> >> > >> Show me why I can't use pronoun, WITHOUT ABSTRACTING YOURSELF FROM PERSONS POV! > > > That would be very very difficult, but why is it John Clark's responsibility? John Clark is not the one who claims to have made new and profound discoveries about the nature of consciousness and personal identify, and if Bruno Marchal can't write the proof without using words that already assume what is supposed to be proven then Bruno Marchal hasn't made any new profound discoveries on this subject either. > >> >> > >> after the duplication, Ed is in both W and M, Ed, in both place, > > > Then obviously the prediction that Ed would see both places turned out to be correct. > > >> >> > >> both Ed are forced to realize that, after all, they see only (W xor M). Ed-M and Ed-W bitterly regret not having have had the foresight on this > > > The prediction was that Ed would see both places and that prediction was correct. > The prediction was that Ed > -w would see Washington > and that prediction was correct.The prediction was that Ed > -m > would see > Moscow > and that prediction was correct. > Exactly what prediction was incorrect? > >> >> > >> There is no unanimity on how to interpret the quantum wave or matrix equation > > > It doesn't matter because they both make exactly the same predictions, and they both give probabilities
WTF... really, Liar Clark saying this... Must be a parallel universe... With probability one. not certainties. > > 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. -- 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.
