Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

2017-08-30 Thread Bruce Kellett
On 29/08/2017 3:17 pm, Russell Standish wrote: I attach a brief PDF of what I have so far. It shows how observer moments, modelled as sets of bitstrings classified by looking at a finite number of bits naturally map to vectors in a complex vector space. There are some lemmas, proofs and

More on topological quantum computing

2017-08-30 Thread John Clark
In the August 23 2017 issue of the journal Nature researchers report they have managed to braid non-Abelian anyons (also called Majorana sudo-particles) in a hashtag # arrangement of wires. These braids can encode a Qbit of quantum information and they can be manipulated. These braids are very

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

2017-08-30 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 Terren Suydam wrote: > ​> >>> ​>> ​ >>> ​ >>> All that's necessary is to imagine or simulate the first person >>> perspective of the one who gets duplicated. >>> >> >> ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Which ​ONE >> >> ​"*THE​* >> first person perspective >> ​" is ​

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

2017-08-30 Thread Terren Suydam
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:06 PM, John Clark wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> All that's necessary is to imagine or simulate the first person >> perspective of the one who gets duplicated. >> > > ​Which ​ONE > > ​"*THE​* > first person perspective > ​" is ​ > Terren Suydam > ​

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

2017-08-30 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >>> The ​thought experiment >>> ​asks the question ​"what one and only one city will YOU see after YOU >>> have been duplicated and become two?", so of course the meaning of the >>> personal pronoun in the question is

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

2017-08-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 30 Aug 2017, at 03:06, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 , Terren Suydam wrote: your point, over and over again, is about the limitations of pronouns in the presence of a duplicating machine. ​Yes.​ ​> ​True enough, but irrelevant. The ​thought