> On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:56, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:49 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>that is one (of many) problems with your “proof”. You start off by > assuming a physical mechanism can duplicate everything > > >False. I start from the assumption that I can survive from a digital > emulation of my brain at some level. > > Then why in the world did you say " With mechanism, obviously a soul, or a > first person experience can be duplicated from a third person pov. But not > from a first person pov”?
? I think this has ben explained many times, and that the duplication thought experiment illustrates so well, like also the non feeling of the split in Everett. With mechanism we can duplicate you, in W and M, say. For an external observer who accept mechanism, there is a you conscious in W and there is a you conscious in M. In that sense (the 3-1 sense) your soul has been duplicated relatively to the external observer. But let us ask both the you in M and the you in W: both confirms that from their point of view, they have not felt any duplication, and the other copy is no more attached to their personal experience. It is a doppelgänger. They might feel intimate with theirdippelganger in some intellectual way, but without magic or telepathy, despite they re both the “H-guy”, they have become independent person, and at no moment do they have a FIRST PERSON experience of a split. Their soul has been maintained private and integral: no soul duplication in the soul’s first personal view. > > >>EXCEPT for the first person pov, > > >EXCEPT *from*, not for. > > I don't see why mechanism can't duplicate experience *from* the first > person pov, but its "obvious" to you so you should have no difficulty > explaining why with clear precise words, and in English not Brunospeak. See above, but that has been explained already many time, and you are using it implicitly when you say that the observer does not feel the split, or the differentiation, in Everett measurement theory. > > >Mechanism cannot duplicate or do something. > > I won't say that's the silliest thing you've ever said but its in the top 10. ? (You made an obvious category error, or just a grammar error). Mechanism is a principle, a doctrine. That does not belong to the category of things capable to do something. It only makes people able to do something. > > >>observers will feel things after both the Everett type split and the > duplicating machine type split, and if the environments they are put into are > different then what they feel will be different and they will become > different people from that point on, although both will remember being the > same person before the split (or walking into the copying machine). > > >OK then, but that entails the first person indeterminacy for the > self-duplication. > > There is nothing indeterminate about that, its all 100% predictable. Ok, what is your algorithm in Helsinki? If you agree that after the duplication, the W-person and the M-person become different people, but still, by mechanism, keeping they H-people identity, how the H-person, when still in Helsinki could predict who he will feel to be? If that is 100% predictable, just give the method of prediction. > > > >>like most of the wise men you recommend on this list the guy who > dreamed up Theaetetus would flunk a freshman algebra test > > >No. He was a great mathematician. He proved the irrationality of all > square root of non perfect square. > > We've known how to solve cubic equations since 1530, but not one of your > ancient Greeks could, You ignore the work of Theaetetus, and apparently even Diophantus, who founded Algebra, and is responsible for many findings there. It is weird. Fermat knew only Diophantus. The rebirth of mathematics comes from the translation of greek mathematics, etc. > and in physics astronomy and biology they were even more ignorant than in > mathematics. Eratosthene knew that the earth was spheric, and has measured its diameter. Yes, that will be forgotten, but has help for the coming back. > So why would anybody working on modern scientific problems be interested in > what they ancient Greeks had to say about anything? Because in theology, they were rationalist and formulate the problem scientifically. So, they are still in advance. We have lost the track due to the use of violence, terror and other argument-per-authority. Then, computer science shows that they were very close to the scientific and mathematical theology, discovered by Gödel, Löb and made complete at the propositional level by Solovay. Again I use theology in the original sense, which is almost the opposite sense than the one used by any religious institution, which prevent the research instead of promoting it, for special private interest. Bruno > > > <sigh> > > <grown> > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
