On 14 Aug 2017, at 18:08, John Clark wrote:
As I've said many times, it's always possible to trace a unique
memory pathway from the present back into the past, even a rat can
do it, but doing the same thing from the present into the future is
impossible because we can remember the past but not the future.
But we assume a precise setting, and so we can easily predict that we
will keep our ability to track back into the past from the two
incompatible first person experience possible. So we can easily
predict P("W v M") = 1, P(M) ≠ 1, etc.
If after a rat has been duplicated the 2 rats then have different
experiences, such as one getting a electric shock and one not
getting one, then they will no longer be identical and will behave
differently in the future. I see no indeterminacy or mystery or
deep philosophy in any of this.
The rat can't see the indeterminacy, because we can't explain to the
rat the protocol. But you know the protocol, so, it is only your deny
that both copies can only confirm to have been unable to predict the
particular outcome of "opening the door" they live.
You are a magician. You explain us convincingly that you understand
the 1p/3p distinction, then you make a tun of hand waving, and
subrepticely you put the 1p under the rug, and say "Voilà! Gibberish!".
Try to find another trick, because everyone has seen this one.
Take the fourth step. Do you think it is more reasonable to bet on the
Washington-experience-1p than the Moscow-experience-1p in case a delay
of one year is introduced in the step-3 protocol for the
reconstitution on Moscow?
It is only at that step that, sometime, opinions diverge. For some
people it seems at first sight that it is obviously equivalent with a
simple telportation to Washington. They argue that they can even
decide to go (by plane) to Moscow and destroy the hard disk which have
the code of the doppelganger! But it is easy to conclude that this is
illusory with digital mechanism explicitly assumed. Assumed the
Russian can keep the code intact and make the reconstitution, even if
the delay becomes billions of years, that P (whatever we use) will
remains invariant.
I let you know that some people understand the result without ever
doing this thought experience. Once you grasp what is a Turing
universal machine, it is a theorem of arithmetic (with enough
induction) that no machine can know which machine she is, and which
computations support her experience, and that physics becomes the
study of the "measure one predictable" from the observable points of
view. In that case, the pronouns are defined in arithmetic by the use
of the "well known" second recursion theorem of Kleene (like the
universal dovetailing is reduced to the sigma_1 sentence by its normal
form theorem).
The thought experiment made this easier, and add a notion of
necessity, although this is not needed to see the "big (arithmetical)
picture".
To sum up, you don't even scratch the surface of the jewel that
everybody, patient and good willing enough, can see or guess here.
I can argue that Emil Post has seen everything, from Gödel, Church,
Turing, to the immaterialism of the fundamental reality, matter as God
vision.
Your contribution here seems to be pure negative obstruction, in a
domain that you have publicly despised.
Bruno
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
