Bruno >> 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.
'You' is ambiguous *because* we agree that 'you' will survive. If we agreed 'you' wouldn't survive then its meaning is clear. 'You' denotes just JC at Helsinki. >> Surely, you can't be serious, as this is not a first experience. It is a >> list of first person experiences. " Don't call me Shirley, and 'I will see 0 or I will see 1' is a list just as really as 'I will see 0 and I will see 1'. Whats your point? >> After pushing the button, you will live only one realization of the >> experience just listed above. This explicitly violates the agreement that 'you' survives in both rooms when duplicated. Also, its when you phrase things this way that it becomes clear that you are violating 'comp' because it is equivolent to saying that 'you' survives in only one branch, that despite the copy being made at the right substitution level in both rooms, something else is carrying over to one or the other room that is not contained in the description. You're language makes it clear that you believe, implicitly if not explicitly, that the description is incomplete. >> you really maintain that the result of JC opening the drawer will be "0 and >> 1"? yes in the following sense. I survive in both rooms. In both rooms I open the drawer. So I will 'live' the experience of 0 and I will 'live' the experience of 1. >> 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 ... Perhaps the question that needs to be asked of JC-H is whether he can expect to see 0 and 1 at precisely the same moment? Is that the question you are trying to formulate? Also, you have to be clear about how 'you' operates. It can track 'you' backwards in time from JC-0 to JC-H and from JC-1 to JC-H, but it doesn't work well tracking duplicates across space at a particular time. So JC-0 can't track to JC-1. So, for example whilst it is true that JC-0-'you' is not JC-1-'you', both are JC-H-'you'. In otherwords, because JC-0 and JC-1's experiences are exclusive relative to one another, they are not exclusive relative to JC-H. From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:40:16 +0200 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. -- 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.
