On 01 Mar 2014, at 10:15, LizR wrote:
On 1 March 2014 21:03, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:06, LizR wrote:
On 1 March 2014 03:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote:
Indeed. I have mentioned at times that if you accept
On 2 March 2014 21:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Because 1+1=2 is elementary math, learned in high school.
1+1=2 is a fact is a non trivial philosophical statement, which
involved a non trivial notion like fact. I have seen people discussing ad
nauseam on what is a fact, and
On 02 Mar 2014, at 10:49, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2014 21:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Because 1+1=2 is elementary math, learned in high school.
1+1=2 is a fact is a non trivial philosophical statement,
which involved a non trivial notion like fact. I have seen people
On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:06, LizR wrote:
On 1 March 2014 03:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote:
Indeed. I have mentioned at times that if you accept Yes Doctor
the rest of comp follows. Which I realise isn't quite true,
? You might elaborate on this.
On 1 March 2014 21:03, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:06, LizR wrote:
On 1 March 2014 03:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote:
Indeed. I have mentioned at times that if you accept Yes Doctor the
rest of comp follows.
On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote:
On 26 February 2014 15:16, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Hi Liz
In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition
of you has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split.
Well what definition of 'you' do you
On 26 February 2014 17:04, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi David,
On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:32, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck
On 26 Feb 2014, at 19:37, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
provide the algorithm of prediction.
Why? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? FPI is
about the feeling of self and prediction has nothing to do with it.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Sorry, I was guessing something along the lines of FPI = first person
interpretation.
???
!!!
You are the one describing the FPI as a crazy discovery.
No, I'm the one who keeps saying that first person
On 28 Feb 2014, at 15:28, David Nyman wrote:
On 26 February 2014 17:04, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi David,
On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:32, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24
On 1 March 2014 03:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote:
Indeed. I have mentioned at times that if you accept Yes Doctor the rest
of comp follows. Which I realise isn't quite true,
? You might elaborate on this. What is the rest, and why do you
On 28 Feb 2014, at 01:27, LizR wrote:
On 28 February 2014 05:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
And Liz-Washington said I don't know if I am the one from
Washington I drunk to much whisky and I lost the diary!
And Liz-Moscow said I don't know if I am the one from Moscow, I
drunk
On 28 Feb 2014, at 02:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2014 4:27 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 February 2014 05:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
And Liz-Washington said I don't know if I am the one from
Washington I drunk to much whisky and I lost the diary!
And Liz-Moscow said I don't know if
On 28 Feb 2014, at 02:10, LizR wrote:
On 28 February 2014 14:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/27/2014 4:27 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 February 2014 05:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
And Liz-Washington said I don't know if I am the one from
Washington I drunk to much
On 28 Feb 2014, at 19:14, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Sorry, I was guessing something along the lines of FPI = first
person interpretation.
???
!!!
You are the one describing the FPI as a crazy discovery.
No, I'm the one
On 24 Feb 2014, at 23:04, LizR wrote:
On 24 February 2014 07:57, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
About [](A - B) - ([]A - []B), let me ask you a more precise
exercise.
Convince yourself that this formula is true in all worlds, of all
Kripke multiverses, with any illumination.
...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:26:02 +0100
On 25 Feb 2014, at 07:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Greaves rejects subjective uncertainty. With respect to spin up and
spin down pay special attention
mathematics.
Bruno
All the best
Chris
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:33:21 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-26 7:31 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Liz
I meant changed from
On 28 February 2014 05:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
And Liz-Washington said I don't know if I am the one from Washington I
drunk to much whisky and I lost the diary!
And Liz-Moscow said I don't know if I am the one from Moscow, I drunk too
much vodka and I lost the diary.
On 2/27/2014 4:27 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 February 2014 05:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
And Liz-Washington said I don't know if I am the one from Washington I
drunk to
much whisky and I lost the diary!
And Liz-Moscow said I don't know if I am
On 28 February 2014 14:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/27/2014 4:27 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 February 2014 05:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
And Liz-Washington said I don't know if I am the one from Washington I
drunk to much whisky and I lost the diary!
And
Hi David,
On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:32, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
wrote:
This is the same as saying that I will
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
provide the algorithm of prediction.
Why? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? FPI is about
the feeling of self and prediction has nothing to do with it.
FPI = first person indeterminacy
Sorry, I was
your hands in the air demanding more and more to unceremoniously
and uncritically ditch is no-ones idea of fun.
All the best
Chris.
--
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:26:52 +1300
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
From: lizj...@gmail.com
they are arguing and how that is different.
See upper
Quentin
Waving your hands in the air demanding more and more to unceremoniously and
uncritically ditch is no-ones idea of fun.
All the best
Chris.
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:26:52 +1300
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
.
--
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:43:33 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-25 8:43 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Quentin
*That's nonsense, *
The point
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes.
In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view.
In who's 1-1 view? You'll probably say in The Helsinki Man's
No. The W-man and the M-m
But that's 2 not one, so if
On 25 Feb 2014, at 01:05, chris peck wrote:
The point is that how probability fits into MWI's determinist
framework, or any TofE really, is still an open question.
Of course, and my point is that comp aggravates that problem, as only
extends the indterminacy from a wave to arithmetic.
On 25 Feb 2014, at 10:43, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
David Deutsch does not reject probability...
Sure he does, he swaps out the Born rule for rational decision
theory (+ amendments to make it compatible with MWI). There isn't
probability, but we should act 'as if' there was. Its what he's
On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
provide the algorithm of prediction.
Why? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? FPI is about
the feeling of self and prediction has nothing to do with it.
FPI = first person indeterminacy of result of experience having two
views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:21:00 +0100
On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
provide the algorithm of prediction.
Why? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? FPI is about
the feeling of self and prediction has
On 26 February 2014 15:16, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Liz
* In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of
you has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split. *
Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is your
criterion
'if the definition of you has been
changed to accommodate the fact that you've split'
Changed from which definition?
All the best
Chris.
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:31:01 +1300
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 26 February 2014 15:53, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Liz
*Assuming comp it appears to be the state(s) that could follow on from
your current brain state via whatever transitions rules are allowed by - I
assume - logical necessity. Perhaps Bruno can explain.*
let me ask
: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:21:00 +0100
On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
provide the algorithm of prediction.
Why? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? FPI is
about
the feeling of self and prediction has
On 25 Feb 2014, at 07:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Greaves rejects subjective uncertainty. With respect to spin up and
spin down pay special attention to the point in section 4.1 where,
in discussion of a thought experiment formally identical to Bruno's
step 3, he argues:
What ... should
sees both.
All that 1p,3p,3-1p,1-3p stuff is a rubbishy smoke screen to divert attention
from the simple error you make here, isn't it?
All the best
Chris.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Wed, 26
the best
Chris.
--
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:26:02 +0100
On 25 Feb 2014, at 07:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Greaves rejects subjective
for your has equal probability of happening...)
Quentin
All the best
Chris.
--
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:26:02 +0100
On 25 Feb 2014
Chris.
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:28:53 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-26 7:21 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Bruno
Yes, it is the common confusion between 1
.
--
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:28:53 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-26 7:21 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com:
Hi Bruno
Yes, it is the common confusion between 1
on
the mind-body problem and much else besides but so what? They do far better
when it comes to probability assignment and subjective uncertainty, imho.
All the best
Chris
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:33:21 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 26 February 2014 19:31, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Liz
* I meant changed from our everyday definition, in which we normally
assume there is only one you, which is (or is at least associated with)
your physical structure. Which we generally assume exists in one
(was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 07:56:14 +0100
On 22 Feb 2014, at 21:09, LizR wrote to Clark (with the above
pap =
the FPI of step 3):
The above pap is only a small step in an argument (and it only
reproduces a result obtained in the MWI, anyway).
OK
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
wrote:
This is the same as saying that I will experience all possible
futures in the MWI - but by the time I experience them, of course,
the version of me in each branch will be
On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
*This is the same as saying that I will experience all possible futures
in the MWI - but by the time I
On 24 February 2014 07:57, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
About [](A - B) - ([]A - []B), let me ask you a more precise exercise.
Convince yourself that this formula is true in all worlds, of all Kripke
multiverses, with any illumination.
Hint: you might try a reductio ad absurdum.
views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
This is the same as saying
On 25 February 2014 13:05, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Since Everett there have been numerous attempts to smuggle an account of
probability back into the theory, and more recent attempts: Deutsch,
Wallace, Greaves etc., do that by abandoning the concept of subjective
frequencies of me seeing ups and downs but
not probabilities of seeing up or down.
All the best
Chris.
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:30:48 +1300
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 25 February 2014 13:05, chris peck
On 25 February 2014 16:54, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Liz
* I can't see why the MWI's existing explanation of probability needs to
have anything added.*
I can't see that MWI has an explanation of probability.
*Probability in the MWI is deduced from the results of
:32:01 +
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
In the MWI you *do* see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of you
has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split. Or to put it
another way, you (now) will become you (who sees spin up) and you (who sees
spin down), which by then will be two different people.
--
You received
, 25 Feb 2014 20:26:52 +1300
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of you has
been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split. Or to put
On 19 February 2014 23:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Liz, Others,
I was waiting for you to answer the last questions to proceed. Any problem?
I give the correction of the last exercise.
On 14 Feb 2014, at 19:18, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip
On 13 Feb 2014, at 22:23, LizR
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 12:53:00 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:05:47 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
On 23 February 2014 00:18, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The body's recognition of foreign protein markers is a lower level
manifestation of the mismatch of higher level zoological history. It is a
sign that on this level of description, tissue is not naively exchangeable.
One
On 23 February 2014 12:42, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 12:53:00 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:05:47 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:48:57 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 00:18, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The body's recognition of foreign protein markers is a lower level
manifestation of the mismatch of higher level zoological history. It is a
manage that.
All the best
Chris.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 07:56:14 +0100
On 22 Feb 2014, at 21:09, LizR wrote to Clark (with the above pap =
the FPI of step 3
duplicated. Certainly for me he doesn't manage that.
All the best
Chris.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 07:56:14 +0100
On 22 Feb 2014, at 21:09, LizR wrote to Clark
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
*This is the same as saying that I will experience all possible futures
in the MWI - but by the time I experience them, of course, the version of
me in each branch will be different, and it always seems to me,
On 24 February 2014 14:04, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Liz
* Let's also suppose you don't know which solar system you will be sent
to, and that in fact the matter transmitter is supposed to send you to A or
B with equal probability based on some quantum coin flip. But by
/abs/quant-ph/0312136
All the best
Chris.
--
From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 01:04:53 +
Hi Liz
* Let's also suppose you don't know
On 21 Feb 2014, at 23:08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Hi Liz,
On 20 Feb 2014, at 08:49, LizR wrote:
On 19 February 2014 23:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Liz, Others,
I was waiting for you to answer the
On 22 Feb 2014, at 06:53, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 20 February 2014 20:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 22:50, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis
On 22 Feb 2014, at 07:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/21/2014 9:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
What could that mean? The diary of the M-guy and of the W-guy do
differentiate, and are different from the memory and records of
the observer
which does not enter in the telebox.
I am not sure
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 20 February 2014 09:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You're assuming that precise molecular assembly will necessarily yield
a
coherent dynamic process, but that may not be the case at all. If
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes.
In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view.
In who's 1-1 view? You'll probably say in The Helsinki Man's, but his
view is just of Helsinki. Perhaps you mean the future 1
On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 20 February 2014 09:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
You're assuming that precise molecular assembly will necessarily
yield a
The above pap is only a small step in an argument (and it only reproduces
a result obtained in the MWI, anyway).
--
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
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:05:47 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 20 February 2014 09:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:05:47 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 20
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes.
In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view.
In who's 1-1 view? You'll probably say in The
On 22 Feb 2014, at 19:45, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes.
In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view.
In who's 1-1 view? You'll probably say in The Helsinki Man's,
No. The
On 22 Feb 2014, at 21:09, LizR wrote to Clark (with the above pap =
the FPI of step 3):
The above pap is only a small step in an argument (and it only
reproduces a result obtained in the MWI, anyway).
OK, but the MWI is a big thing, relying on another big thing: QM.
The FPI assumes
On 21 February 2014 16:48, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Liz
*Suppose for the sake of argument that the matter transmitter sends you
to another solar system where you will live out the reminder of your life.
Maybe you committed some crime and this is the consequence, to be
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
if it is about a prediction on 1p events, the specificity is simple: we
have to interview all the copies.
Then don't just talk to the Moscow Man and say that is enough to disprove
the prediction that the Helsinki Man will see
2014-02-21 19:07 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
if it is about a prediction on 1p events, the specificity is simple: we
have to interview all the copies.
Then don't just talk to the Moscow Man and say that is enough
On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Liz,
On 20 Feb 2014, at 08:49, LizR wrote:
On 19 February 2014 23:00, Bruno Marchal
marc...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marc...@ulb.ac.be');
wrote:
Liz, Others,
I was waiting for you to answer the
On 21 February 2014 14:48, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Liz
Suppose for the sake of argument that the matter transmitter sends you to
another solar system where you will live out the reminder of your life.
Maybe you committed some crime and this is the consequence, to be
On 20 February 2014 09:24, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You're assuming that precise molecular assembly will necessarily yield a
coherent dynamic process, but that may not be the case at all. If you put
random people in the proper places in a baseball diamond, and give the one
On 20 February 2014 20:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 22:50, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 18/02/2014, David Nyman
On 2/21/2014 9:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
What could that mean? The diary of the M-guy and of the W-guy do
differentiate, and are different from the memory and records of the observer
which does not enter in the telebox.
I am not sure what sense to give to your statement.
Likewise, the
On 21 Feb 2014, at 19:07, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
if it is about a prediction on 1p events, the specificity is
simple: we have to interview all the copies.
Then don't just talk to the Moscow Man and say that is enough to
disprove
What is it like to be Daniel Dennett?
On 22 February 2014 19:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/21/2014 9:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
What could that mean? The diary of the M-guy and of the W-guy do
differentiate, and are different from the memory and records of the
On 19 Feb 2014, at 18:51, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:46:40 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 18/02/2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of
On 19 Feb 2014, at 19:36, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding
the argument that you can't meet your doppelganger,
So you want me to defend my case but
On 19 Feb 2014, at 20:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-19 19:36 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding
the argument that you can't meet
On 19 Feb 2014, at 22:50, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 18/02/2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon
of another debate, as UDA importantly does
not assume QM.
Bruno
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:53:46 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-19 19:36 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
Hi Liz,
On 20 Feb 2014, at 08:49, LizR wrote:
On 19 February 2014 23:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Liz, Others,
I was waiting for you to answer the last questions to proceed. Any
problem?
Well, nothing apart from going on a mini holiday with an old friend
for the last 4
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I can say today that I am the guy having answered your post of last week.
But if duplicating chambers exist then there are lots of people who could
say exactly the same thing, so more specificity is needed.
and
On 20 Feb 2014, at 16:59, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I can say today that I am the guy having answered your post of
last week.
But if duplicating chambers exist then there are lots of people who
could say exactly the
On 21 February 2014 00:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Thanks for telling me, so that I avoid any paranoia, like did I say
something impolite or what
Never that!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
but as I see it probabilities, however small, get rounded up to 1 in MWI
scenarios.
All the best
Chris.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:45:39 +0100
On 20 Feb 2014, at 16:59
or at least half
of it.
All the best
Chris.
From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 03:48:43 +
Hi Liz
Suppose for the sake of argument that the matter
transmitter sends you
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 03:48:43AM +, chris peck wrote:
My probabilities get assigned in the same way. ie: chance of seeing solar
system A is 1. I can't assign a probability of seeing Solar System B if I
don't know about the possibility of accidents. But,
If I know that there is a
+1100
From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 03:48:43AM +, chris peck wrote:
My probabilities get assigned in the same way. ie: chance of seeing solar
system A is 1. I
views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 03:48:43 +
Hi Liz
Suppose for the sake of argument that the matter transmitter sends
you to another solar system where you will live out the reminder of
your life. Maybe you committed some crime
1 - 100 of 511 matches
Mail list logo
