Re: That stupid diary

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > In a post you agreed with principle 1: > Principle 1: if the guy in Helsinki is assured that the event X will be > statified/realized at both W and M, then P(X) = 1. > ​Probability is a measure of confidence, so ​

Re: That stupid diary

On 09 Aug 2016, at 19:24, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​I am still waiting for an explanation about your two recent posts which contradicted themselves. ​What are you talking about?​ In a post you agreed with

Re: That stupid diary

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > I am still waiting for an explanation about your two recent posts which > contradicted themselves. ​What are you talking about?​ ​> ​ > The first person remains singular for both copies. ​Yes, and BOTH

Re: That stupid diary

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 9 August 2016 at 03:27, John Clark wrote: > > > ​ >> ​>> ​ >> And as I've explained several times MWI does NOT have the same problem. >> Before *you* perform the 2 slit experiment it would

Re: That stupid diary

On 08 Aug 2016, at 19:27, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote: >​>​ Is this really that difficult to comprehend? If computationalism is true​ ​then the machine will be able to make 2 copies that are identical to each other in every way and

Re: That stupid diary

On 9 August 2016 at 03:27, John Clark wrote: ​And as I've explained several times MWI does NOT have the same problem. Before *you* perform the 2 slit experiment it would NOT be gibberish to ask* you* "After the experiment what do *you* expect to see?", because both before

Re: That stupid diary

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > >> ​>​ >> Is this really that difficult to comprehend? If computationalism is true >> ​ ​ >> then the machine will be able to make 2 copies that are identical to >> each other in every way and will remain identical until the

Re: That stupid diary

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:49 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > > >> > >> I am asking if you think that, for computationalism to be true, the >> diaries of the duplicates must be equal even after the

Re: That stupid diary

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: ​> ​ > I am asking if you think that, for computationalism to be true, the > ​ ​ > diaries of the duplicates must be equal even after the duplication > ​ ​ > event. ​Only if the environments ​the 2 are in are also

Re: That stupid diary

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 7/31/2016 1:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > I would agree but Bruno wouldn't, according to him there is something about >> me that a physical machine can't duplicate, Bruno is clear as mud about >> what >> that

Re: That stupid diary

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 9:32 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > > >> We make a copy of you. [...] >> >> >>> > >>> > >>> OK stop right there! Bruno says >>> "Nothing can duplicate a first person view

Re: That stupid diary

On 7/31/2016 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote: > ​f​ or comuptationalism to be true, then the ​ ​ future diary must also be identical? ​I don't know what that means, identical to what? I'm saying that​ computationalism ​ is true if and only if a physical machine can duplicate

Re: That stupid diary

On 7/31/2016 1:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I would agree but Bruno wouldn't, according to him there is something about >me that a physical machine can't duplicate, Bruno is clear as mud about what >that something is but apparently it's important. The future cannot be duplicated. Don't you

Re: That stupid diary

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​But there is nothing in the laws of physics to prevent somebody else >> ​from having those exact same memories. > > > ​> ​ > At the level of macroscopic bodies there is. The somebody else can't > occupy the same

Re: That stupid diary

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> We make a copy of you. [...] >> >> > > >> ​> ​ >> OK stop right there! Bruno says >> ​ ​ >> " >> *Nothing can duplicate a first person view from its first person point >> of​ ​view, with or without

Re: That stupid diary

On 7/30/2016 7:25 PM, John Clark wrote: ​O​ n Sat, Jul 30, 2016 Telmo Menezes >wrote: ​> ​ You have a set of memories ​ about your past that we can refer to as your "diary". ​But there is nothing in the laws of

Re: That stupid diary

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 4:25 AM, John Clark wrote: > O > n Sat, Jul 30, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> > >> You have a set of memories >> >> about your past that we can refer to as your "diary". > > > But there is nothing in the laws of physics to

Re: That stupid diary

On 31 July 2016 at 12:25, John Clark wrote: > ​OK stop right there! Bruno says > "*Nothing can duplicate a first person view from its first person point > of view, with or without computationalism. It just does not make any sense. > It duplicates only the 1-view in the 3-1

Re: That stupid diary

​O​ n Sat, Jul 30, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote: ​> ​ > You have a set of memories > ​ > about your past that we can refer to as your "diary". ​But there is nothing in the laws of physics to prevent somebody else ​from having those exact same memories. You say that diary

Re: That stupid diary

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 6:42 PM, John Clark wrote: > For some reason Bruno takes great stock in a written diary "Diary" refers to a set of memories of the past that one recognizes as genuine, independently of how they are recorded. Bruno's argument does not rely on giving

Re: That stupid diary

to their own.Thanks. -Original Message- From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sat, Jul 30, 2016 3:48 pm Subject: Re: That stupid diary On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 3:36 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@g

Re: That stupid diary

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 3:36 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: Do you have a reason why or how, hypothetically, speaking, that some > magical computer cannot duplicate everything about you? ​No, and magic is not required.​ > ​> ​ > Are you a

Re: That stupid diary

Do you have a reason why or how, hypothetically, speaking, that some magical computer cannot duplicate everything about you? Are you a non-materialist? What reason given sufficient computing magic and the computers ability to do ginormous, research about john clark, forbids it from restoring