On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 2:58 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:23 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > *> I guess you never clicked the link I provided at the start of this >> thread. * > > > I've done a lot better than click on a link that provides a brief > synopsis, I've spent hours reading every page in the man's entire book and > you and Bruno should do the same. > > *>You got it at least once 6 years ago on this list when you agreed that a >> forking computer process containing AIs could not predict which process >> they would end up in. * > > > I don't know what you're referring to so it's hard to know how to respond, but > since you can pinpoint the exact time, 6 years ago, you should be able to > include the exact quote where I said I "got it" and enough context around > it so it's clear who "they" are that failed to make a prediction, and even > more important it's crystal clear exactly what the correct prediction would > have turned out to be. > I did a few days ago, but you didn't respond. I'll post it again: This Halloween will mark 6 years since you agreed with Step 3, but said it was a let down (presumably because you thought it so obvious): https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/5PR1FXp_CSU/73ltRVEHUtQJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/5PR1FXp_CSU/PnuTSn_82PwJ Should we expect another 6 years before you proceed through the next steps? There's no rush, since you are freezing yourself this debate could go on another 10^100 years. > > > quoting Carroll: "*Now quantum mechanics comes along and throws a >> spanner into the works a little bit if you're a many-worlds person Laplace >> is demon is still possible*". > > > Yes, if Many Worlds is correct then the Schrodinger Wave Equation of the > Multiverse is all there is, and it is a 100% deterministic equation, so > Laplace's > demon could solve it and in theory *you* could too. And yet the empirical > fact remains *you* can NOT predict the future, at least not always and > not perfectly. If Many Worlds could not explain this obvious glaring > discrepancy it would be dead dead dead. But Many Worlds can explain it and > can do so easily; *you* can't answer the question "*What one and only one > thing will **you** see tomorrow after the universe splits?*" for exactly > the same reason *you* can't answer Bruno's question "*What one and only > one thing will **you* *see tomorrow after **you** are duplicated and * > *you* *become two and **you** see two different things?*" The difference > is in the Many Worlds case, after the universe splits, if I asked *you* today > what the correct answer *you* should have given yesterday was: > > 1) It would be obvious who the question was directed to. > 2) It would obvious what would have been the correct answer. > > Neither of these things is true for Bruno's "question". > What's so special about duplicating universes? Perhaps you can explain why one leads to apparent randomness and the other case does not. > > Of course Sean Carroll delves into this issue in far greater detail that > I have here, and you'd know that if you had read the man's book as I have. > Is anything I said about Carroll wrong? What do you hope I will learn from reading Caroll's book? Jason -- 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/CA%2BBCJUim67HoWqsm9MenmNwOgzKLcc2GRc%3DmgZ%2B%3DdMBjM%3D5eaA%40mail.gmail.com.
