Re: A profound lack of profundity

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Pronouns work fine today because nobody has yet made a "I" duplicating >> machine, but when they do the English language is going to need a massive >> overhaul. >> > > ​> ​ > There are already billions

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 13/08/2017 6:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 August 2017 at 16:48, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 13/08/2017 10:01 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 at 9:19 am, Bruce Kellett

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 at 9:38 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 13/08/2017 6:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 13 August 2017 at 16:48, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 13/08/2017 10:01 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017

Re: R: Re: A profound lack of profundity

I didn't read it either because it wanted access to all my contacts. But Shan Gao has a number of papers on arXiv.org. He has some peculiar ideas about QM. Brent On 8/13/2017 12:30 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: First person, second person, and third person are basically

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 at 1:56 am, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > ​ >>> ​>> ​ >>> Pronouns work fine today because nobody has yet made a "I" duplicating >>> machine, but when they do the English

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 13 Aug 2017, at 13:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/08/2017 6:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 August 2017 at 16:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/08/2017 10:01 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 at 9:19 am, Bruce Kellett

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 13 Aug 2017, at 01:46, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat 12. Aug 2017 at 03:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/08/2017 3:22 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 11 Aug 2017, at 13:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> Are you telling us that P(W) ≠ P(M) ≠ 1/2. What do *you*

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 13 Aug 2017, at 00:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/08/2017 5:56 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Aug 2017, at 04:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/08/2017 3:22 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Aug 2017, at 13:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: Are you telling us that P(W) ≠ P(M) ≠ 1/2. What do *you*

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 13/08/2017 10:01 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 at 9:19 am, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 13/08/2017 9:05 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 13 August 2017 at 08:48, Bruce Kellett

R: Re: A profound lack of profundity

First person, second person, and third person are basically grammatical categories: first person, I/we, second person, you/you, third person, him/them. The third independent person plays a central role in the interpretation of perceptual evidence in terms of reliable conceptual models of the

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 14/08/2017 3:25 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Aug 2017, at 01:46, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat 12. Aug 2017 at 03:12, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 12/08/2017 3:22 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 11 Aug 2017, at 13:40, Bruce

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ​> ​ > After duplication, the copies will not claim to be the same person any > more, > ​True but both will claim they are the "I ' who yesterday asked the question "What city will I see?"​ ​. Do you think maybe just

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 14/08/2017 2:51 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 at 9:38 pm, Bruce Kellett > wrote: I think the problem I see is in the insistence that one restrict the subjects of the duplication to first person

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 14/08/2017 11:19 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 at 10:30 am, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 14/08/2017 2:51 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 at 9:38 pm, Bruce Kellett

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 at 10:30 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 14/08/2017 2:51 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 at 9:38 pm, Bruce Kellett < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> >> I think the problem I see is in the

Re: Re: A profound lack of profundity

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 at 5:38 am, Brent Meeker wrote: > On 8/12/2017 3:58 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > You try to help John C., but you contradict his "theory" (which is indeed > based on the 1p/3p confusion). > > > I suggest that the whole of step 3 is based on a 1p/3p

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 at 11:30 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 14/08/2017 11:19 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 at 10:30 am, Bruce Kellett < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> On 14/08/2017 2:51 am, Stathis

Re: R: Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 13 Aug 2017, at 09:30, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: First person, second person, and third person are basically grammatical categories: first person, I/we, second person, you/you, third person, him/them. The third independent person plays a central role in the interpretation

Fwd: Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 8/12/2017 3:58 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: You try to help John C., but you contradict his "theory" (which is indeed based on the 1p/3p confusion). I suggest that the whole of step 3 is based on a 1p/3p confusion. If the duplicated subject does not have 3p knowledge of the protocol, he

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 at 7:59 am, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > ​> ​ >> After duplication, the copies will not claim to be the same person any >> more, >> > > ​True but both will claim they are the "I > ' who

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 14 August 2017 at 14:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: The point, as I see it, is that if, after duplication, the copies can > communicate, and they agree that they both have psychological continuity > with the original person, and that, consequently, the original person saw

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 14/08/2017 2:32 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 14 August 2017 at 14:15, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The point, as I see it, is that if, after duplication, the copies can communicate, and they agree that they both have

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 14/08/2017 12:44 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 at 11:30 am, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 14/08/2017 11:19 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 at 10:30 am, Bruce Kellett

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 13 August 2017 at 16:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 13/08/2017 10:01 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 at 9:19 am, Bruce Kellett < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> On 13/08/2017 9:05 am, Stathis Papaioannou