On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:49 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>> *the academy of Plato .*... >> >> >> ... knew less science than one bright third grader today. > > > >*You told me you did not have study it.* > You only need to look at Plato's academy for about 25 seconds to know that they didn't know where the sun went at night but a bright modern third grader does. > > *You invoke your god.* > Apparently your a fan of transcendental meditation and believe if you just keep chanting your mantra long enough you can make it come true. You've been doing it for a decade now but I guess that's not quite long enough. >> A valid proof shows that a statement is grammatically correct in the >> language of mathematics but it does not prove that it exists. If you prove >> that every sentence in a Harry Potter book is grammatically correct in the >> language of English you have not proven that dragons exist. Dragons don't >> exist but the English word "dragons" does. > > > > *> 2+2 = 5 is grammatically correct in arithmetic, but that has nothing to > do with ^provability or with truth.* > Exactly. All true statements about things that exist made in the language of mathematics are grammatically correct, but there is no reason to think all grammatically correct statements made in the language of mathematics are about things that exist. You can write both fiction and nonfiction in the English language and the same is true of the Mathematics language. > > >>A digital computer needs atoms > > > > Not at all. A physical computer needs some physical objects, but the > whole point of the discovery of the universal machine, is that they are not > physical machine. > And a non-physical Turing Machine can make real calculations in exactly the same way as a dragon in a Harry Potter book can breath real fire. >> it is a fact that even AFTER your "experiment" is over there is STILL no >> way for anyone > > > *> For anyone? * > Yes for anyone. *> Then you deny consciousness to both copies. * > I deny that your "question" is a question at all because it is about the fate of a personal pronoun with no clear referent that a personal pronoun with no clear referent is supposed to answer. It takes more than a question mark at the end of a stream of gibberish to turn it into into a question. > > *Basically, you say that we die in the teleportation experience,* > The Helsinki Man does indeed die in the teleportation experience, but only if a very very silly definition of "The Helsinki Man" is used. It's silly because even without teleportation or people duplicating machined it would mean even in the everyday non exotic world we all die a billion times every second or so. > “The” alludes to the first person experience. In a world with people duplicating machines there is no such thing as *THE* first person experience; you need to be more specific but you can't because if you did the glaring flaws in your argument would be obvious to all, so things must remain ambiguous. > *> They both feel “I see only one city”.* > You say "both" so that means there are 2 of them, so if Mr. I is the Helsinki Man then the Helsinki Man saw 2 cities. And Mr. I is the Helsinki Man if you really meant what you said about the Helsinki Man being anyone who remembers being the Helsinki Man yesterday, but of course you didn't really mean it and will now start equivocating. > > *Both copies knows very well what happened.* > Yes they know what happened, everybody does, but nobody understands what question has been asked. Certainly you don't. > *> They pushed on a button, and they got a results that they understand > was not predictable with certainty.* > Everybody correctly predicted that the Moscow Man will see Moscow and the Washington man will see Washington and everybody correctly predicted that both will have a first person experience tomorrow and nobody in Helsinki will. There is nothing more to predict. > * > We know that both are right, by Mechanism, in saying “I was in > Helsinki, yesterday, * > and now I am still in only one city”. If both say "I see a city" and if the cities are different and if both say “I was in Helsinki, yesterday" and both are right and if the Helsinki Man is anybody who remember being in Helsinki yesterday then it does not require a PhD in logic to conclude that the Helsinki Man ended up seeing 2 cities. Yes each individual only saw one city but each individual is only half of the Helsinki man because *THE HELSINKI MAN HAS BEEN DUPLICATED* and that is what the word "duplicated" means. > *> You play with words* > Over the last decade you must have said that close to a hundred times, you say it so often not because I am some sort of smooth talking city slicker lawyer but because that is your only defense when I catch you in a logical contradiction. And that happens a lot. 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-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
