Re: A riddle for John Clark
On 18 Jul 2015, at 18:54, John Clark wrote: And if he means a being who remembers being a man in Helsinki, and Bruno Marchal has said more than once that is what is meant, then the probability of he experiencing one and only one city is zero. The probability of he (or anyone, actually) *experiencing* one and only one city is one. Proof: let do the experience and ask after the duplication has been completed to all the guys---who remembers being the guy who was in Helsinki before the duplication---how many cities they have seen behind the door. All can only answer I have seen (experience) only one city. So P(W and M) = 0 was correct for both, and P(W v M) = 1 was correct for both, when, of course, W and M each refers to the first person experience content, and not to the third person description of those possible first person experiences. W and M for the first person apprehension by a machine of its self- localisation is simply meaningless, when we assume digital mechanism. In particular, the guy would have been lied and told that it is a simple (without duplication) tele-transportation to W or M with a random coin, he would not have known that he has been duplicated at all. From a first person view, a duplication does not duplicate, in any first person sensible way, the first person experience. Then the indeterminacy does not depend if the duplicate is in a far away galaxy, in a parallel universe, or even (as is shown later) in the very elementary (Sigma_1) arithmetical reality. If not you add either new Turing emulable relations, and the level was just wrong; or you add non Turing emulable relations, but then we have to compare them with the non Turing emulable reality with which all machines are already confronted too, by theoretical computer science and the First Person Indeterminacy. You are just not taking the definition given. It is very simple, if you take the definition of the third person definition of first person notions used here. The only way to confirm the expectations is in interviewing the copies, about their experience (not about what they imagine). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A curious puzzle - teaching a computer to understand infinity
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: But the truth is if space-time* IS* quantized then the Real Numbers are a mathematical fiction . That does not follow. You might still need the real in the amplitudes. The irrational sqrt(2) will not go away so easily. If space-time is quantized (and it may or may not be) then the diagonal of a square that has a side of one unit is NOT the sqrt(2) , instead its amplitude could be exactly described with a number with a finite number of digits to the right of the decimal point and physics would have no need of the Real Numbers except as a handy approximation. Actually the Real Numbers are already a mathematical fiction in experimental physics, perhaps someday the same will be true of theoretical physics. John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A riddle for John Clark
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: T he probability of he (or anyone, actually) **experiencing** one and only one city is *one*. If you want that statement to be true then he can't mean somebody who remembers being a man in Helsinki, you're going to have to change what he means to something else. But of course ICT1PWT3P, Proof: let do the experience and ask after the duplication has been completed to all the guys---who remembers being the guy who was in Helsinki before the duplication---how many cities they have seen behind the door. OK, he will say one city, Moscow. And he will say one city, Washington. So if 1+1 =2, and I really think it is, then he saw 2 cities. If you want that statement to be false then he can't mean somebody who remembers being a man in Helsinki, you're going to have to change what he means to something else. But of course ICT1PWT3P, From a first person view, a duplication does not duplicate, If that first person wants to discuss what will happen to him after the people duplicator has been turned on that discussion will be gibberish unless it is realized that the first person view has been duplicated. But of course ICT1PWT3P, The only way to confirm the expectations is in interviewing the copies, about their experience I agree but one interview is not sufficient to confirm or refute the expectation, two are required. Not that expectations, correct ones or incorrect ones, have anything to do with consciousness or the unique feeling of self. But of course ICT1PWT3P, John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A curious puzzle - teaching a computer to understand infinity
On 18 Jul 2015, at 23:33, John Clark wrote: Some bozo by the name of John K Clark wrote: it all depends on if space-time is quantized or not; if it's not then the Real Numbers are a mathematical fiction But the truth is if space-time IS quantized then the Real Numbers are a mathematical fiction. That does not follow. You might still need the real in the amplitudes. The irrational sqrt(2) will not go away so easily. Bruno John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
