> On 6 Nov 2018, at 00:18, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> We cannot identify first person notion with third person notion. A subtlety >> is that physics is, eventually, shown to be first person plural, and not >> third person as usually believed today. > > That is merely a consequence of your idiosyncratic definitions of theses > terms. Your definitions were devised to cope with the person duplication > scenarios, where it is individuals that are duplicated, not worlds. So if you > duplicate a number of persons so that they share this experience, then that > is first person plural, and you can still have other non-duplicated people > outside of the experiment who can take a third person view of things.
Good summary. Slighty ambiguous. I guess you get rightly the fact that the fist person plural is what happens when we duplicate a group of people. Inside that group they can share the first person indeterminacy. > > This is not how it works in the real world You cannot invoke a real world. That is part of what we are seeking to understand. > -- we do not duplicate just people. In MWI it is worlds that are duplicated, > together with all the people in them. At a speed below light, OK. That makes quantum indeterminacy into the mechanist first person plural. That is what confirms the most the mechanist hypothesis, given that physics has to be a calculus of the first person plural indeterminacy. But the term “world” is tricky. I prefer to talk only of computation, and perhaps some notion of “model or semantical extensions” (in some mathematical sense which I will not develop now). > So there can be no analogy of the third person view of someone outside the > duplication. Here the someone would be a guy how study the Schoredinger equation of a “very many body and soul situation”. > The terminology then becomes useless, and we revert to the normal grammatical > meaning of the terms: first, second, and third person; first person being > one's personal view, second person is the person you talk to, and the third > person is anyone else. It is a category error to use your idiosyncratic > terminology in normal physics talk. Normal physics? I do not assume a physical universe, nor any notion as “normal”. That we have to redefine precisely some term is normal, especially when we introduce the duplication of bodies. If you believe in a physical universe playing some role in consciousness, you might elaborate. I think you will need to assume that computationalism is false. With computationalism, no machine can distinguish a computation done by this or another universal system. Physics can only be a stable invariant in a first person plural statistics. And indeed, the math shows that this works. And then we can see where the physical laws come from, and why, and how, the split into qualia and quanta. 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] > <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.
