On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 9:15 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 15 May 2019, at 13:18, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:50 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 10 May 2019, at 15:16, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:51 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> That is impossible. The first person plural is when two persons enter >>> the annihilation box. They will share the indeterminacy, but that >>> indeterminacy is still 1p. The “3p” see only two guys being duplicated. >>> >> >> In your duplication experiments, but not in QM; no one 'sees' the quantum >> superposition continuing after a measurement has been made. >> >> >> Which duplication experiments. The one is step 3, or the one in step >> seven? The whole point is that the second one should give the entanglement, >> and that is why I study the modes of self-reference corresponding to it, >> and there, we do find a quantum formalism. >> > > I am talking about person duplication as in step 3. There is no other form > of duplication involved. Step 7 introduces the dovetailer, with the > possibility of multiple computational threads passing through the same > conscious state. But that is not duplication — > > > > It is duplication (multiplication) by the invariance of delays, the > virtual/physical first person invariance, etc. > You can call them “arithmetical preparation” but they put us, here and > now, in front of an infinite self-multiplication. > > it is just separate persons having the same thoughts by chance. > > > But then, they are the same person, and they are confronted with the > global (on the UD work) first person indeterminacy. > That is an enormous leap of faith. There is no reason to suppose that they are the same person, not just many persons that happen to have the same though by chance. This is your standard "cat=dog" argument -- a superficial similarities implies identity. > Nothing to do with entanglement in either case. You do not find the > quantum formalism anywhere. > > > By reversing a theorem by Goldblatt, the “material modes” of > self)reference do give the necessary beginning of the quantum formalism. > Balderdash. > You ignore the translation of the UDA in arithmetic. > Arithmetic does not exist independently. > >> >>> The mechanist definition of the first person plural correspond to the >>> quantum notion of entanglement, or what I describe often as the contagion >>> of superposition, due to the linearity of the tensor product. >>> >> >> That is totally meaningless; your 1pp has nothing to do with entanglement. >> >> >> If you prove this, and assuming QM correct, you refute Mechanism (modulo >> a logical possible malevolent “bostromian” simulation). >> > > OK, then Mechanism is falsified. Because you have not shown that quantum > entanglement arises from personal duplication. > > > False. We miss the existence of objet to which entanglement applies, but > we have the fact that if they appear, there will be entanglement. > As I have said before, hubris! > Wr do explain the quantum logic aspect of any possible “nature” available > to machines. > > The goal is not in doing physics. Physics does that quite well. The goal > is in explaining where physics come from, and this without adding > ontological commitment incompatible with mechanism and the existence of > consciousness. > You have not explained where physics comes from because you have not derived any useful results. It's all "cat=dog"! 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTdi8j-uxBb7u8aRybQSCXQC7GCQBf5LWxCZe_6XMtR5Q%40mail.gmail.com.
