John,
I don’t see any argument. Just distracting statements, not even trying to hide
your ontological commitment.
That is pseudo-religion. You talk like a member of the clergy.
Given the definition of the first person, the first person indeterminacy is
probably made clearer with the iterated duplication experiment. Imagine you bet
the definite history describing the decimal of PI (in the alphabet {W, M}. Any
schoolboy I asked on this understand that at the first iteration, one of the
copy will admit that his statement was wrong, although the other copy will
assert that he was confirmed. For some that is enough to prove that in
Helsinki, the guy should have been more cautious. But apparently you need more,
so, we can look at the second iteration, (like I have described previously: the
two copies come back in Helsinki, by plane say, and do the duplication again.
Now, only one of four copies assert having been confirmed, and then again, and
only 1/8, then 1/16, then 1/32, etc. This decrease as 1/2^n.
A simple argument shows that whatever precise history is predicted, it can be
confirmed only by 1/2^n. In fact the “computable stories” can even been shown
to be negligible in the limit. So, even those who correct their prediction will
end up into a negligible minority. By the definition of the first person
notion, this shows that no prediction will be assessed by the vast majority of
copies, and most copies will agree that they have been unable to predict the
outcome (first person self-localization), and this explains what the first
person indeterminacy means, in case you still miss it.
Handwaving and insults just confirms that you have decided to not understand.
Bruno
> On 21 Sep 2018, at 19:43, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:05 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> >>If physics is not involved then neither is time or space, so nothing about
> >>the "machine" changes, and without change a calculation can not be made.
>
> >See my answer in previous post.
>
> In my experience reading your stuff twice brings no additional clarity.
>
> >you cannot invoke your personal metaphysics.
>
> If a mechanic can't fix the engine in his car without "invoking personal
> metaphysics" then there is nothing metaphysical about it. It's just physical.
>
> >if you assume Aristotle’s [.....]
>
> How very interesting! I believe this is the first time you've ever mentioned
> the ancient Greeks, why didn't you do that before?
>
> > I use “exists” as a quantifier in some theory. The axioms are given in all
> > textbook of logic.
>
> Assuming logic textbooks exist did anything exist before logic textbooks
> existed ? And if logic is more fundamental why is it that a physical machine
> can simulate logic but logic can't simulate a physical machine?
>
> >>Maybe there is some way other than a Turing Machine to perform a
> >>calculation,
>
> >That is ambiguous.
>
> Maybe a Turing Machine can't find the answer to all nondeterministic
> polynomial time problems in polynomial time but some other physical method
> can, I doubt it but maybe. It's probably the greatest unsolved problem in
> mathematics. Does P=NP? Most think the answer is no but nobody can prove it.
> Intuitively you'd think in general it must be harder to write a book than
> read a book and harder to write a proof than check a proof, but then again
> these days it sometimes takes the entire mathematical community years to
> check a proof before they conclude its valid so maybe not.
>
> >>but whatever that way is you can be certain it involves change, and that
> >>means its physical.
>
> >No. We need only the local change
>
> If you're talking about locality then you're implicitly assuming the
> existence of time and space, and they are physical concepts.
>
> > in the memory of the machine.
>
> Memory is physical. It turns out that theoretically you can perform a
> calculation without using energy but If you don't have a infinite memory then
> at some point you're going to have to erase the scratchpad stuff you used to
> make the calculation. And in 1961 Landauer proved it takes a minimum amount
> of energy to erase one bit of information and he told us exactly how much
> that is; its Boltzmann's constant times the temperature of the memory in
> degrees Kelvin times the natural logarithm of 2. Landauer's results are
> rooted in the Second Law Of Thermodynamics and if I could pick one thing that
> I think physicists would still consider to be true a thousand years from now
> it would be the second law.
>
> Landauer's limit on the minimum it takes to erase one bit of information is a
> very small amount of energy (.0172 electron volts) but if the amount of space
> needed to store one bit of information keeps shrinking then in 10 or 15 years
> computer engineers are going have to take it into consideration. Some early
> designs for nanocomputers ignored it and thus if they had been built they
> would have given off so much heat they would have acted more like bombs than
> computers. But you can mitigate the number of bits you need to erase by
> computing the scratchpad memory backwards (if you have a reversable computer)
> and restoring it to its original state without erasing any information or
> using any energy. Nobody has bothered to make a reversible computer because
> computers are still so big Landauer's limit is not a significant engineering
> consideration, but someday it will be.
>
> >Usually computational changes is defined by finite sequence,
>
> Finite sequences never change.
>
> > they are defined by [...]
>
> Bruno, you can't define your way to the truth or toward reality.
>
> >>nobody but you knows what the hell "the God of Physicalism or Primary
> >>Matter” means
>
> > It means a notion of matter that we assume to be obtained only by
> > assumption. It is called sometimes “the second God of Aristotle”.
>
> After all these years why did you wait till now to refer to God or the
> ancient Greeks? That did it that convinced me, anybody who can do that must
> be right. If only you'd done it years ago!
>
> >>>You did.
>
> >>Ahhhh.... yet more goddamn personal pronouns! Well OK maybe so, maybe
> >>Mr.You knows what Bruno means by "You" in a world that contains "you"
> >>duplicating machines, but John certainly does not.
>
> >We can see that, but that contradict the fact that you agree[...]
>
> I think the H-guy survived but I do NOT agree that we agree! Maybe we agree
> maybe we don't, I have no idea.because nobody including you knows what you
> mean by "the H-guy".
>
> > [...] the H-guy survived the duplication.
>
> I know exactly what I mean whenever I write "the H-guy" and my meaning has
> remained constant from day one of this endless debate, but if you have any
> meaning at all for the term it changes in every other sentence.
>
> > 14 years old kid got this.
>
> I don't doubt it, and if 14 year old kids edited Nature or Science you could
> get your ideas published there, but most 14 year old kids are not very good
> at critical thinking, although some are better at it than a logician I know.
>
>
> > From the 3p perspective they are duplicated, but from the 1p perspective,
> the situation is not symmetric/ One feel to be in W and the other feel to be
> in Moscow.
>
> And every bit of that the was predicted by The Helsinki Man. The Moscow and
> Washington men didn't predict it because yesterday back in Helsinki they did
> not exist.
>
> >>the instant the doors were opened and they saw different things, that 2
> minds emerge where only 1 was before.
>
> Yes, and each mind feel unique, and so the question in Helsinki was about
> predicting the chance to be which one.
>
> The chance of WHO becoming which one??? And before answering that question
> with some personal pronoun with no clear referent or just saying "The
> Helsinki Man" I want to know precisely what you mean by the term. I've told
> you exactly what I mean now it's your turn. I want a definition as good as my
> own so that at any point before or after the duplication if I ask "Did the
> Helsinki man do see hear or think X?" you can answer with a simple yes or no
> and not come back with a blizzard of qualifications, homemade jargon,
> acronyms, and weasel words. If you can't do that then you haven't defined it
> properly, and because you haven't provided good examples either I don't know
> what you mean by "the Helsinki man".
>
> 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.
