On 14 Aug 2017, at 02:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/08/2017 2:51 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 at 9:38 pm, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
> wrote:
I think the problem I see is in the insistence that one restrict
the subjects of the duplication to first person knowledge. Their
knowledge of the protocol cannot be purely 1p -- there has to be a
3p component in that they are told the set up, and they have
sufficient background 3p knowledge to trust the operator, etc.
Then, after duplication, they also have access to 3p knowledge
about both duplicates -- they can arrange to communicate, for
example. So they can easily become aware of the fact that the
person that remembers being Helsinki man sees both Moscow and
Washington. My point here is that if you restrict them to 1p
knowledge after the duplication, you must, in order to be
consistent, restrict them to just 1p knowledge before the
experiment; in which case they are necessarily unaware of the
details of the protocol and will have a different perception of
what has happened.
In the case of restriction to 1p knowledge the situation becomes
much more analogous to what happens in QM where experiments might
have multiple outcomes. In that case there is no possibility of
communication between the different branches of the wave function,
so there is genuine uncertainty about outcomes, and probabilities
are estimated from limiting relative frequencies in the usual way.
If one derives and/or applies the Born Rule in QM, then one can
assign low probabilities to untypical sequences of results and the
like. If you mix 1p and 3p knowledge in the duplication scenario,
you lose this parallel with QM because the analogous 3p knowledge
is not available in QM.
If someone believes the MWI is true, then he is aware of the
protocol and trusts the operator. In duplication experiments there
is no logical reason why the copies could not be kept ignorant of
each other
And there is no logical reason that prevents them from arranging
beforehand to communicate after the experiment -- in Helsinki, I
could decide to post my subsequent location to Facebook, and
communicate with other similar posts.
and there is no logical reason why copies in the MWI can't see what
each other is doing.
Such inter-branch communication in MWI is physically impossible.
Assuming QM 100% linear. Weinberg has shown that if QM is slightly not
linear, the probabilities used in QM would not change a lot, but we
would be able to interact in-between branch. That illustrates that the
meeting or not of the copies is irrelevant. Of course, that is
directly obvious from mechanism, and in the worst case, change the
protocol so that they don't meet. It is OK if only because the copies
in arrithmetic cannot meet either, so step 1-8 is recovered (but
agaion, the metting or not has no relevance at all).
This is the main reason why person duplication experiments can never
emulate QM, MWI or not.
Of course. But that has never been said. The reasoning only show that
physics is a branch of theology/arithmetic.
You often talk like if someone did claim that duplication =
superposition, but it is only the multiuple preparation in arithmetic
which must maps with physics, and even this is not entirely correct,
as the probabilities are on the first person experience, which are
never duplicated as first person experience, only in the 3_1 view.
You follow my opponents of brussels, who demolish claims that I have
never claimed. That is not hoinest.
Bruno
Bruce
--
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.
