On 23 Jul 2016, at 19:24, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "our world" cannot be taken as a primitive notion in our
setting.
If nothing else I admire your courage, most people would be
embarrassed to admit that they don't accept reality.
Interesting. You betray that you are so much Aristotelian that you
forget some people could disagree with them.
It is *the* very idea of Plato that what we see might not be the
*PRIMITIVE* reality.
Aristotle in a nutshell: what we see = reality (that lead to the
contemporain physicalism)
Plato in a nutshell: what we see = symptom of some unknown reality
that we can search (led to Xeusippes "mathematicalism" and diverse
form of neopythagoreanism.
> QM without collapse can arguably be mentioned as an evidence
"the FPI exists".
So there are an infinite number of Bruno Marchals in Everett's
Many Worlds but all of them are zombies with no consciousness except
for one, the one in this world; THAT AND ONLY THAT Bruno Marchal has
THE FPI.
Of course not! I have no clue how you derive this. They have all the
FPI, and that is why there is a FPI. Nothing collapse the wave, and of
course, nothing collapse the many computations in arithmetic.
But the key computationalist point, is that for all copies, they feel
like a dissymetry has been introduced and they feel like a collapse,
and this in QM-without collapse (Everett), in the local physical
computationalist FPI (step 3), and in the global FPI (step 7).
>> 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.
According to Bruno Marchal only I have THE FPI, so why should I be
empathic or polite to zombies? It would be like being kind to a
rock. Just to be clear, "I" is defined as the person having THE FPI,
and THE FPI is defined as THE FPI I am having.
I don't know if you fake it, but you reason like misunderstandinbg
everything I said in the post and oin the papers. You brag not reading
the papers, but you seem to not read the post either.
>> Math alone can't confirm anything, it can just tell
us that certain results follow from certain assumptions. But you're
assumptions are worse than wrong, they're gibberish.
> I think that you confuse "confirming", and making something
true.
Math can't make anything true, it can show that something is true
IF AND ONLY IF the assumptions that the math uses are true.
If the assumptions are not true or not false either (aka gibberish,
as in your case) math can't make or do or prove or do anything with
it. If you stick nonsense into the math machine nonsense will come
spewing out accomplishing nothing.
>> 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,
Bruno Marchal has done it so many times that now Bruno is
unable to answer the simple question " After "you" have been
duplicated what one and only one city will "you" end up seeing,
Moscow or Washington?"
Given that there has been a duplication, we have (in the 3-1 view) two
first person views, and to get them, by the definition given, we need
to ask the question to both copies.
And both confirms the statement predicted by the computationalist in
Helsinki. Both says I see only one city without having been able to
predict which one in advance. So both confirms the FPI.
This question (assuming it really is a question and is not just
gibberish with a question mark at the end) is indeed simple, in that
it should have a one word answer known to everybody after the
experiment is completed, but Bruno Marchal has given the answer so
many times Bruno has forgotten if that one word is Moscow or
Washington.
It is Moscow and not Washington for all of them, and Washington and
not Moscow for all for them, but the key point is that both agree that
they could not predict that answer in advance, and that when opening
the door, they knew in advance that they would get one bit of
information.
It is very easy, and very clear. You need just to keep in mind that
the question is on the accessible 1-views.
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.
