On 31 Aug 2015, at 23:58, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>Bruno Marchal was alluding on how you predict your
subjective experience when you do an experience in physics
where "you" has been duplicated and thus making that personal
pronoun ambiguous.
>I have repeated many times that the question is always asked
before the duplication.
And the question is about what one and only one thing will happen
to YOU after YOU has been duplicated and becomes TWO. In other
words the question was about gibberish.
I can't prove mathematics is more fundamental than physics and I
can't prove it isn't, and as of September 30 2015 nobody else has
been able to do any better.
> If my body is a machine, then there is not much choice in the
matter.
If we're dealing in philosophy and not everyday conversation and
it my body is a machine then I don't know what "choice" means.
And if my body is not a machine I still don't know what "choice"
means.
> You beg the question with respect to step 3.
There may be a question mark but there is no question. And I have
no answer because gibberish has no answer.
>> When I don't know I'm not afraid to say I don't know.
> Then you contraidct yourself. By the way, your argument that
there is no computation in arithmetic is isomorph to the argument
that a simulated typhon cannot make someone wet, which I know you
don't believe in.
A computer can make a simulated hurricane but because it uses only
numbers to build the storm and numbers (probably) have no
physical properties the simulated hurricane would always lack
something the real hurricane had, the physical ability to get the
computer wet.
However if it turned out that you're right and math is more
fundamental than physics and numbers have everything physics has and
more then a clever enough programmer could write a program that
would cause the computer to actually get wet. I'm very skeptical
that such a program is possible but I can't prove it's impossible so
maybe you're right.
>> No it does not. What I said was that up to now nobody
has ever made one single calculation without the use of physical
hardware
> How do you know that?
Because every time a calculation is made something physical
in a computer changes and if I change something physical in a
computer the calculation changes.
> How do you know that there is physical hardware?
Because I can touch the hardware with my physical hand.
> If you don't know if math is or not the fundamental science,
Observations can be made regardless of it math or physics is the
fundamental science.
> But we know as a fact that elementary arithmetic (Robinson
Arithmetic) contains all terminating computations, and all pieces on
the non terminating computations.
Then computer chips would be unnecessary and Raphael M Robinson
should be the principle stockholder of the Robinson computer
corporation and be a trillionare, but I don't believe that is the
case.
A physical brain or a physical computer can perform calculations
that produce Robinson arithmetic, it can describe how a
calculation was done, but Robinson
arithmetic can't actuality calculate a damn thing. .
>> why hasn't at least one of those numerous scientists started
their own computer hardware company with zero manufacturing costs
and become a trillionaire? This is not a rhetorical question, I'd
really like an answer.
> For the same reason that nobody would drink simulated water,
unless they are simulated themselves.
That is a very bad analogy because there is such a thing as
simulated water but there is no such thing as simulated arithmetic;
simulated water is different from physical water but arithmetic is
always just arithmetic. I think we would both agree that when a
simulated computer calculates 2+2 the 4 it produces is exactly the
same as the 4 a non-simulated computer would make when
doing the same calculation, and the same would be true if the
simulated computer itself simulated a computer. But we also
agree that simulated water would not quench your thirst the way that
physical water would, so if physical water has attributes that
numbers can not produce, so you tell me if physics or
mathematics is the more fundamental.
>>>> Convince the National Academy of Science or the
Royal Society that you're not talking nonsense and have them make
you a member; and then convince the International Congress of
Mathematicians and have them award you the Fields Metal and announce
it all here.
>>> You are basically making an argument by authority
here,
>>> And your multiple statements that I have not convinced
anybody else on this list is not an argument from authority??
>No, it is not. It is a simple observation that anybody can
verify.
And it is a simple observation that anybody can verify that you
have been unable to convince the National Academy of Science or
the Royal Society or me.
Oh! Give me the address and I will think about it.
Frankly, I thought that doing a PhD in a recognized university is
enough.
I think you are the only one thinking this deserves the Nobel prize,
thanks!
Your post above is slightly better than usual, you are just
anticipating points which are decomposed in the next step of the
Universal Dovetailer Argument notably step 6, 7, and 8.
Just one remark: we cannot make a piece of matter wet in arithmetic,
but once we postulate computationalism, we can prove that all the
piece of computations leading to the first person experience of
feeling wet, or clenching your thirst, exist in arithmetic, indeed, in
a super-redundant way, that play a rôle in the measure problem.
And now a desert. The little tale of JC the FPI-skeptic guy.
I will please you and not use pronouns (despite having refute any
problem with the use).
So JC was in Helsinki, where he was proposed an experience of being
scanned (at the right level), annihilated, and copied in the rooms 0
and 1. Which are similar except for a paper in a drawer where 0 and 1
is written on it. (To change a bit). Note that both remains in
Helsinki, as the rooms here are in Helsinki too.
And someone asked JC, before the duplication, what do you expect to
live. JC remarked that "you" is ambiguous. Oh, but you agreed that you
will survive, so you expect to live some experience, no? Let me ask
you this how to you evaluate the chance to see 0 on the paper after
opening the drawer.
JC said, BULLSHIT! JC said that JC will predict to see both 0 and 1.
Oh? that is your prediction?
"- yes, I predict that I will see only 0 and that I will see only 1"
"Surely, you can't be serious, as this is not a first experience. It
is a list of first person experiences. After pushing the button, you
will live only one realization of the experience just listed above.
Do you really maintain that the result of JC opening the drawer will
be "0 and 1"? If that is the case, let us do the experience, as we
have the mans to verify, when using the definition given of first
person experience (the memory trail, as described in the personal
diary of the self-duplication.
So JC predicts "0 and 1". Then I interview JC-0. Did you observe "0
and 1". Yes, JC told me.
How come? JC -1 has not yet been reconstituted, may be ... Of course,
here we are confronted to the gigantic ocean of bad faith of JC.
Oops, I will have to resume correction of math exams, then get the
amount of sleep to make me able to correct even more exams.
Are we living for working?
or are we working for living?
I smell rampant confusions there too I'm afraid.
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.
