> On 17 May 2019, at 13:43, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 9:15 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > On 15 May 2019, at 13:18, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com > <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:50 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be >> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: >> On 10 May 2019, at 15:16, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com >> <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:51 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be >>> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> 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.
I agree. That is why modesty requires us to tell it is a theology. Now, by definition of the substitution level, it is not just the behaviour which is the same, it is all what is needed to be you, unless you are an actually infinite being, but then, Darwinism and most of current science are deeply flawed. > 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. Same thought, same character, same feeling of having survived. Of course, by adding enough special infinities, you can make mechanism wrong. But when we do science, we do not add supplementary hypothesis to conform to our metaphysics, especially when they bring back the problem we have just solved. > This is your standard "cat=dog" argument -- a superficial similarities > implies identity. On the contrary, the modes of self-reference implies that the identity is far beyond what is apparent. It contains the whole non communicable part. > > > >> 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. ? (Have you study this: that part took me 30 years of work. It is not obvious, nor is Goldblatt paper obvious). If you study the work (mine and Goldblatt, you might make less bold comments, I think). Here you shows some prejudices. > > You ignore the translation of the UDA in arithmetic. > > Arithmetic does not exist independently. OK. Then tell me on what numbers and addition/multuplication depends. Formalise your idea in a first order theory, so that we can make the comparison. And don’t beg the question by invoking your God “matter”, please, > >>> >>> 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! Without an argument, that looks like a simple insult, which is indeed the case most of the time when people does not want to argue, and only sell their pseudo-religion. > > 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”! I ahem no clue what you mean. You just seem to not have study the papers. I have explained where physics come from. That is not useful, but the goal is not to make a useful theory, but a theory which makes sense of both consciousness and the physical reality. If your criteria is instrumentalist, then the whole of philosophy/metaphysics becomes “not useful”, and we are back to shut up and calculate predictions only. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTdi8j-uxBb7u8aRybQSCXQC7GCQBf5LWxCZe_6XMtR5Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTdi8j-uxBb7u8aRybQSCXQC7GCQBf5LWxCZe_6XMtR5Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/96EDE8D5-0EB4-4665-9731-A916C49266FF%40ulb.ac.be.
