On 30 Sep 2017, at 11:49, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2017-09-30 11:40 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
On 29 Sep 2017, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> This thought experiment must be analyzed from the first
person perspective
There is no THE first person perspective if first person
perspective duplicating machines exist!!!!! It's the same blunder
over and over and over again.
> (and by that I'm referring to the grammatical person).
I would bet money that the third grade English teacher
that wrote that article did not have first person
perspective duplicating machines in mind.
> There is only one stream of consciousness, ever,
Then why can't anybody *ever* tell me if that one stream of
consciousness is in Moscow or Washington?
Because that is non determinable from the first person point of you.
Here Terren won the point. (Like if this could change anything in
your attitude alas).
Bruno
just ask him to describe from a 1st pov what happens... like this:
I'm in helsinki, I'm in front of a button, I close my eyes, I push
on the button, and I open my eyes, and I am ...
I see only one valid continuation of the text if written before
pushing the button:
-> in washington or in moscow.
I see two valid continuations of the text given by the two copies if
written after pushing the button:
-> in washingtom
-> in moscow
What will never be valid if written before or after is this;
-> in washington and in moscow.
Because being in washington *and* moscow is not something that can
be lived from the 1st pov.
OK.
But JC will still blurry anything by either pretending it's 1st POV
vanish from existense or that the answer is santa claus or obiwan
kenobi...
Is it not mysterious? Intriguing?
So the only real valid continuation here is to *stop* talking with
him and about this. The last 10 years of this list is a circle dumb
discussion between you and JC... JC has clearly destroyed the goal
of this list, and you engaging him on this is just the way to
perpetuate that troll forever... *he will never acknowledge
anything*, he is a troll... that's his purpose, he doesn't *care* of
what you're saying, he is just taking pride of destroying this place
of discussion about everything theories (not only yours).
Yes. But all my life people have "argued" like that under my back, for
reason I can understand, and not related to mechanism.
The question for me is how far can John Clark, or any Löbian machine,
get irrational and why?
It is related to the question of lies in general, the Bf. Its role in
arithmetic and life and why, on the fundamental questions (which needs
deep introspection) it is frequent they become irrational. Boltzmann
had a very hard time with those denying and mocking his idea of
"statistical physics". Come on! There were just no place for
statistics in the classical mechanical mind of the time.
It illustrates that "materialist believers" are not afraid of
contradictions to keep their dogma. We are warned. It is the stage
before the bombs.
As I see it, this list died 10 years ago, nothing interresting as
come out of it since unfortunately... only infinite useless step 3
discussion with a troll.
Step 7 is more interesting. And step 8, well I have changed my mind on
its necessity at all in the argument. yet, it still shows something
subtle and very interesting which throws some light of on what are
computations and mathematical relations in general.
Most people ignore that all the UDA can be formalized in arithmetic,
and, better, has been somehow formalized through the work of Gödel,
Löb, Solovay (G, G*), Visser, with some of the intensional variant
made independently by Goldblatt, Boolos, and also Kuznetsov and
Muravitskii in the ex-USSR (S4Grz).
John Clark is not the only one repeating those lies on me or the
notions involved (in which case it is disguised in errors. Even my
director of thesis eventually justified the disappearance of the "Prix
Le Monde" by writing a very big lie.
Is it really the fear of mechanism? Or just the fear of a minority to
hide a scandal and save their notoriety? The behavior of John confirms
that could be the case. It could be just the hubris. But then it means
there is still some hope, I mean, for humanity. Some hope is tasting
the truth instead of the lies.
I teach the Turing machine formalism this year, want a taste of it? I
build a virtuous circle (cf. Brent). I teach five "universal
machineries": Turing machines, Combinators, Lambda Expressions, Abacus
Machine, Modular machine (Cohen), and Diophantine Polynomials, showing
that they emulate themselves in a circle. My goal is to help people to
understand what is an implementation, a notion always relative to a
universal machine or machinery. I use notation of Gödel and Davis, to
encourage them to read the original papers.
If some people are interested I can always attempted to make clear the
"machine's interview", but that asks for some taste in logic and
computer science, and some cold head attitude with notations.
But math is perhaps not good for mailing list, the people can read the
papers and ask questions. Don't ask me to not answer John, I like him
because it plays well the role of the dumb in light which is far
better than the cruel in the dark. It does not ask for much work, and
I still hope for him to see at some point that what he says is nothing
more than 0 = 1.
Bruno
Quentin
> despite the possibility of its bifurcation (no different
from many-worlds)
In many-worlds the meaning of personal pronouns are always
clear, in Bruno's thought experiment they never are.
> The only reality a person experiences is the one inside
their head. Thanks to this, we never have to get into pronouns
Then why is Terren Suydam unable to state Terren Suydam
's ideas without the constant use of personal pronouns and the
misuse of articles like "the" and "a"?
> You seem to have a hang-up that prevents you from adopting
that perspective
My hang-up is I don't know what perspective you're
talking about and neither do you.
> you compulsively return to questions about the objective
reality,
Objective reality is important but subjective reality is even
more important. There is only one objective reality but there are
billions of subjective realities, so a question about subjective
reality needs to specify which one it's referring to, and the way
English grammar uses personal pronouns just can't do that if people
duplicating machines are in the mix.
> talking in terms of multiple consciousnesses,
How can I not talk about multiple consciousnesses if you're
talking about people duplicating machines?
> and getting confused about the referents of grammatical
conventions.
I plead guilty to that charge, I am VERY confused about
what you're talking about because you're using grammatical
conventions just as people have been using for centuries, but for
centuries there has been no people duplicating machines. A century
ago "What one and only one city will I see tomorrow?" was a real
question with a real answer because the meaning of the personal
pronoun "I" was clear, but a century from now "Tomorrow I will
see one and only one city after I have become two, what is the
name of that one city I will see?" would just be ridiculous.
Is it really your position that the English language will need no
modification on how it uses personal pronouns even after people
duplicating machines become common?
> And you blame that gibberish on the thought experiment
itself,
If it's not gibberish then what in the world is the above
"question" asking? Who is the referent to the personal pronoun "I"
in the phrase "I will see tomorrow" if "I"
am to be duplicated today?
> you've lost the plot.
Gibberish has no plot.
> If you want to continue this, great, but I'm not going to go
around in circles
You could still participate, you could just do what Bruno does
and chant the mantra "you confuse the 3p and the 1p", that won't
take up much of your time.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
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 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.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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.
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.
