On 21 Jul 2016, at 20:15, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "THE FPI" comes from nothing because in a world with FPI
duplicating machines "THE FPI" does not exist.
> The FPI requires duplicating machines.
We haven't invented duplicating machines yet, does that mean FPI
doesn't exist in our world?
QM without collapse can arguably be mentioned as an evidence "the FPI
exists".
Then with computationalism the FPI exists, although no machine can
prove it, but all can prove it exist "as far as they are consistent/
sound machines.
"our world" cannot be taken as a primitive notion in our setting.
>> What the hell is the difference between "3-1 view" and "3
view"?
> 3p view: the bodies of the H-guy is reconstituted in both
places. 3-1 view: the bodies of the H-guy is reconstituted in
both places and I attribute a genuine first person experience to both
In other words the Helsinki man's "genuine first person
experience" would be experienced by both.
Exactly.
So "What one and only one experience will The Helsinki Man
experience?" is not a question with a indeterminate answer, it's
just an asinine question.
You forget having an once of empathy for the copies here. You should
try to be polite with your selves.
> The 1-1 view is just an expression emphasizing that it is not
the 3-1 view.
Then it's just a case of jargon inflation to impress the rubes,
but I'm not a rube and I am not impressed. I had already figured out
that if 1 view were the same as 3 view you wouldn't have given them
different names.
But wait ...
> The 1-1-view is equivalent with a 1-view
Then the best way to emphasize that is to never say 1-1-view
again.
Yes, it is useful when compared with the 3-view. In the math: the 1-
view and the 1-1-view are equivalent because [1]p <-> [1][1]p is a
(scheme) of theorem in Löbian arithmetic.
But the 3-view ([0]p, beweisbar('p') is not equivalent to [1]p, from
the machine 1-self and 3-self views. G* can prove the equivalence but
the machine cannot, neither in the 3-view, nor in the 1-view. Like
with the UDA, all that follows from logic and arithmetic/computer-
science.
>> At least with the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment when
it's all over and the box is opened the state of the cat's health is
known,
> Which cat?
The only cat in the box that we can see in the observable
universe, that cat.
> We know all the time that the cat is all the time dead and
alive, in the 3-1 view,
Sorry, I've lost track of what the 3-1 view is, but I do know
that in no view in the observable universe "the cat is all the time
dead and alive".
> Then the math confirms this up to now.
Math alone can't confirm anything,
I think that you confuse "confirming", and making something true.
it can just tell us that certain results follow from certain
assumptions. But you're assumptions are worse than wrong, they're
gibberish.
>> Even though Bruno conceded that "He" means "remember having
been in Helsinki " John Clark is sure Bruno's response to this
will be "not in the 1-p" forgetting that in a world that has 1-p
duplicating machines there is no such thing as "THE 1-p".
> Then you die,
Maybe, that depends entirely on what the hell "he" means, and the
meaning seems to shift even within a single sentence, but whatever
the hell that god damned personal pronoun means what's important is
that if at least one thing (and the more the merrier) tomorrow
remembers being John Clark today then John Clark will live for at
least another 24 hours.
> If computationalism is correct, then there is a "the 1-p" at
both places,
No there would be "a 1p" at both places, and that would be true
even if computationalism was false.
> "the 1p" is the one you will live with certainty
And the one "you" will live with certainty is
"the 1p". And round and round we go.
> although you cannot know which one in advance.
Not only that, "you" cannot know which one even after the
experiment is over because it's not a question, it's just words with
a question mark at the end.
This is so easily shown wrong. I did it many times, but there is no
deafer person than the one who does not make the homework, and come
back with critics debunked since long.
> "Which one" makes no sense in the 3p view, but get already
clear meaning in the 3-1 view.
There is no such thing as THE 3-1 view.
I can understand why you say (incorrectly though) that there is
nothing as "the" 1-view, but eventually this is just *your*
difficulties in handling the indexicals. But to say that there is no
such thing as THE 3-1 view, in this context and protocol, you lost me
completely.
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
