RE: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

2015-09-02 Thread chris peck
Bruno >> And someone asked JC, before the duplication, what do you expect to live. JC >> remarked that "you" is ambiguous. Oh, but you agreed that you will survive, >> so you expect to live some experience, no? Let me ask you this how to you >> evaluate the chance to see 0 on the paper after

RE: Idiot Test

2015-08-13 Thread chris peck
Once there are experience, we can only have partial consensus. Now, I know better salvia than DMT, and the resemblance of the experience is striking. It goes like -30% feel the feminine presence (called lady D, or virgin Maria, etc..). -75% feel the rotation/vortex -67% feel the alternate

RE: Idiot Test

2015-08-12 Thread chris peck
Here's a thread with all the list's alpha-male geniuses mocking someone. Here's me, the village idiot, convinced they all pass their own idiot test with flying colours. lol. I mean if the test involves understanding the implications of psychedelic drugs then you all just failed to do that. A

RE: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

2015-08-06 Thread chris peck
@ Pierz If he refuses to acknowledge MWI as a valid account due to his pronoun concerns, then fine, maybe he should publish a refutation of Everett to that effect. but isn't John's point that pro-nouns do not cause much trouble when duplicates end up in separate universes? Thats a

RE: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

2015-08-04 Thread chris peck
@ Bruno You forget that you and Peck are the only one having a problem here. Im not sure thats true. True, there is a fair amount of uncritical support, but from what I see people kind of give you the benefit of the doubt at step 3 agreeing that there is something wishy washy about it.

RE: A riddle for John Clark

2015-07-27 Thread chris peck
. Personally, I don't think you'll ever fix step 3 unless you try a bit harder. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:45:40 +0200 On 27 Jul 2015, at 05:04, chris peck wrote:@ Bruno [John]Bruno Marchal

RE: A riddle for John Clark

2015-07-27 Thread chris peck
you'll ever fix step 3 unless you try a bit harder. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:45:40 +0200 On 27 Jul 2015, at 05:04, chris peck wrote:@ Bruno [John]Bruno Marchal​ is correct, that is not ambiguous

RE: A riddle for John Clark

2015-07-26 Thread chris peck
@ John ​In MWI You is the only thing that the laws of physics ​allow Quentin Anciaux to observe that is organized in a Johnkclarkian way ... With duplicating chamber stuff if the bet was you will see Moscow I don't know how to resolve the bet because I don't know who you is. MWI is

RE: A riddle for John Clark

2015-07-26 Thread chris peck
@ Bruno [John]Bruno Marchal​ is correct, that is not ambiguous, ​that is a flat out logical contradiction. [Bruno] Where? The problem arises because if You = person who remembers Helsinki then you ought to be able replace one for the other without truth values altering. Thats just

RE: A riddle for John Clark

2015-07-23 Thread chris peck
the Bruno-Quentin approach of praying the problem will go away by pretending it doesn't exist. Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:48:51 +0200 Subject: RE: A riddle for John Clark From: allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Le 23 juil. 2015 05:09, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com

RE: A riddle for John Clark

2015-07-22 Thread chris peck
Quentin Then under MWI, same thing you're garanteed to see all results, so probability should also be one Deterministic branching leads to trouble rendering the idea of probability coherent. Go figure! Who would ever have guessed determinism and chance were difficult to marry... Subject:

RE: A riddle for John Clark

2015-07-21 Thread chris peck
Two mutually exclusive first person experiences cannot be a first person experience. Obviously. if I could experience M and W simultaneously they would not be exclusive by definition . If anyone besides you thinks I would argue any different they should look again. I argued that in worlds

RE: A riddle for John Clark

2015-07-20 Thread chris peck
the question asked to him in Helsnki concerns his expectation of his experiences, and thus his experience content, which can only be seeing one city among W and M, i.e. W or M. nah. he can expect to have two mutually exclusive experiences. He will dream of being in Red Square and of having

RE: A riddle for John Clark

2015-07-15 Thread chris peck
Simple comp predicts that in W, the H-guy opens the door and sees only W and ~M (as those letters refers to the first person experience, not the intellectual belief), and that in M, the H-guy opens the door and sees only M and ~W. Both concludes that P(W M) was 0, and know better, now

RE: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

2015-01-21 Thread chris peck
: johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 7:49 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: Since 1961 muslims have been subjected to increasingly draconian restrictions on their freedome and a media that depicts them in as dehumanizing way as possible

RE: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

2015-01-19 Thread chris peck
Maybe the Onion cartoon didn't set anyone off, but it just isn't true that these three Algerians are the only people who behave psychotically in the face of free speech. During the first salvos of the battle of Fallujah the allies ransacked and shut down the general hospital because it was

RE: Films I think people on this forum might like

2014-06-17 Thread chris peck
yeah, The Grand Budapest Hotel was a blast. Cinema for cinema's sake. Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:39:32 +0200 Subject: Re: Films I think people on this forum might like From: multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Recently had fun with this in cinema, now out on

RE: Films I think people on this forum might like

2014-06-17 Thread chris peck
Alert in the email before you give away crucial details to a movie? Many of the films mentioned in this thread I haven't seen. If I had read Chris's post before watching The Prestige I would have been pissed off. Thanks,Terren On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:20 AM, chris peck chris_peck

RE: Films I think people on this forum might like

2014-06-16 Thread chris peck
It makes even more mysterious your resistance to UDA Well The Prestige is a film about obsession and the lengths people go to meet them. Its not about the UDA. It does contain a teleport machine in it and the naughty magician keeps duplicating himself and killing off one of the duplicates.

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-08 Thread chris peck
Oh, when it suits your prejudice it's OK to just count votes. You suddenly no longer need to read the papers and decide for yourself. Eh? Why the sour face? I thought you'ld be cracking open the champagne. There's no consensus. I give you perhaps the best news in history, ever, and you're

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-08 Thread chris peck
10:13:44 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing On 4/8/2014 4:44 AM, chris peck wrote: Oh, when it suits your prejudice it's OK to just count

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-08 Thread chris peck
suing On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:06:09PM +, chris peck wrote: To see if various denier criticisms were valid. So you accept the claims of climate change advocates as true by default and only read those papers which have criticisms leveled at them by deniers? That isn't very even

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-08 Thread chris peck
. This latest row was trigger by nothing more controversial than that. Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:18:34 +1000 From: li...@hpcoders.com.au To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:50:07PM +, chris peck

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-08 Thread chris peck
', then it is a fallacy. Things are not true because people believe them right? Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:59:53 +1200 Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 9 April 2014 12:51, chris peck chris_peck

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-07 Thread chris peck
, to the UN? What is the remediation for this problem and how long will it take to implement? -Original Message- From: chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 6, 2014 7:08 pm Subject: RE: If you can't disprove the science

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-07 Thread chris peck
looking at the instruments and using their best theories to interpret the readings - e.g. people who claim that they agree for some psychological reason, e.g. because they all adhere to some paradigm - are talking bollocks. On 7 April 2014 14:56, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-06 Thread chris peck
The real story here is that a peer reviewed journal was intimidated into withdrawing a paper that had passed through the proper review channels. That the internet is full of conspiracy theory isn't news. And to the extent that climate science denial is correlated with beliefs in conspiracy

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-06 Thread chris peck
as much responsibility to show why the 1% are wrong as vica versa. Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 16:51:34 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing On 4/6/2014 4:08 PM, chris peck wrote

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-06 Thread chris peck
On 4/6/2014 5:35 PM, chris peck wrote: Brent If 100% of scientists were in agreement about climate change, that fact alone, tells me nothing about the truth of the claims they actually make. So does

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-06 Thread chris peck
you know what you're talking about but I haven't got a clue. Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 14:47:42 +1200 Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 7 April 2014 14:32, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com

RE: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark

2014-03-25 Thread chris peck
consequences such as 'immortality'. We're want something that can be measured. From: stath...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:12:09 +1100 Subject: Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 25 March 2014 16:58, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote

RE: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark

2014-03-25 Thread chris peck
It's a pretty significant dodgy metaphysical consequence if you actually live forever. Its many things. Interesting, strange, wonderful and so on but the one thing it isn't is significant. The continuation of an experiential history on some other earth, a history common to the one that just

RE: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark

2014-03-25 Thread chris peck
stand point they simply do not exist relative to one another. Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:25:11 +1300 Subject: Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 26 March 2014 16:22, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: It's a pretty

RE: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark

2014-03-24 Thread chris peck
I think you're missing Scott's point. The universe is obviously isomorphic to a mathematical structure, in fact infinitely many different mathematical structures, all of which are in Borges Library of Babel. Almost all of them are just lists of what happens. Scott's point is

RE: Max and FPI

2014-03-23 Thread chris peck
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-12 Thread chris peck
Hi Bruno But that can only be a 3-1 description. She handles the 1p by a maximization of the interests of the copies, and that is equivalent with the FPI, without naming it. Funnily enough Bruno, if I was opportunistic I would just about accept that. I mean personally, I would argue

RE: The way the future was

2014-03-11 Thread chris peck
was On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 1:21:52 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 10, 2014 1:49:01 PM UTC, chris peck wrote: you are saying that something musically significant happened here Something significant happened to pop music for sure. In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod

RE: The way the future was

2014-03-11 Thread chris peck
It depends, sometimes yes... But at other times thought provoking gloom can be fun, while light, non-gloom fun can seem cheap and pandering. Just depends on situation. Right now, I don't know if what I'm listening to is light or gloomy and thought provoking. It has a minimal sort of machine

RE: The way the future was

2014-03-10 Thread chris peck
you are saying that something musically significant happened here Something significant happened to pop music for sure. In 1977 the charts were dominated by David Soul, Rod Stewart, Brotherhood of Man, Leo Sayer, Hot Chocolate, Boney M, Shawaddywaddy and Billy Ocean. Daddy Cool. Rockin' All

RE: The way the future was

2014-03-10 Thread chris peck
- Enthusiastically attack butter (4) ...but anyway, yes, I like the Pistols some of the time, even if they were McLaren's boy band really. PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris

RE: The way the future was

2014-03-10 Thread chris peck
basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: you are saying that something musically significant happened here Something significant happened to pop music for sure. In 1977 the charts

RE: The way the future was

2014-03-10 Thread chris peck
. PS whoever put Hendrix as a proto punk should on the same basis add Cream and even the Stones. (At this rate everyone will be in on it...) On 11 March 2014 02:49, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: you are saying that something musically significant happened here Something

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-09 Thread chris peck
Hi Bruno With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using different vocabulary. Really? the last time I quoted her: What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see.

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-07 Thread chris peck
Hi Bruno With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using different vocabulary. Really? the last time I quoted her: What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see. So, she should

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-06 Thread chris peck
Hi Bruno Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone. pfft! let me put it this way. There are a bunch of perspectives on subjective uncertainty available. Yours and Greave's to mention just two. They are mutually incompatible and neither of them has been refuted to the 'satisfaction of

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-06 Thread chris peck
Hi Bruno ou cannot say something like this. It is unscientific in the extreme. You must say at which step rigor is lacking. I think you're missing the fact that I was poking fun at a comment you made to Liz. Don't worry about it. You make vague negative proposition containing precise

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-05 Thread chris peck
Hi Jason/Gabriel Thanks for the posts. They were both really clear. I can see that it was a mistake to hedge my bets on exact figures and also, given Jason's comments, to think that seemingly regular sequences were quite common. I do maintain that proportions of roughly 50/50 splits are a

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-05 Thread chris peck
Hi Bruno The question is: can you refute this. To my own satisfaction? Yes. To your satisfaction? Apparantly not. Though perhaps you have an ideological agenda and are just trying very hard not to be refuted? And for the UDA, you don't need the 50%. You need only to assess the

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-03 Thread chris peck
Hi Liz 0001 0010 0011 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 Of which I'm fairly sure half the digits are 0 and half 1! What am I missing here? If you concatenate all those strings together you'll get a bigger string in which the proportion of

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-03 Thread chris peck
Hi Liz I'm not sure I follow. Me neither. wrote down your room number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros occurring about 50% of the time. there would be no 'about' it were your interpretation right, Liz.

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-03 Thread chris peck
converge to 1/2 in probability. This is exactly the way prediction of probabilities are evaluated experimentally. It is irrelevant that the proportion of subsequences that have exactly equally 1s and 0s goes down. Brent On 3/3/2014 8:32 PM, chris

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-02 Thread chris peck
If you repeated the cloning experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros occurring about 50% of the time. There's something strikes me as very

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-02 Thread chris peck
On 3/2/2014 11:36 PM, chris peck wrote: If you repeated the cloning experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros and ones you'd written looked random

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-02-26 Thread chris peck
Hi Edgar It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be no deterministic rules for aligning separate spacetime fragments thus nature is forced to make those alignments randomly. Far out, man! Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-25 Thread chris peck
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 wasn't whether you think its nonsense or not. I couldn't care less about that. we were arguing about whether there are Oxford

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-25 Thread chris peck
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 for identity over time? With regards to Bruno's steps, at this point I

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-25 Thread chris peck
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

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-25 Thread chris peck
Hi Bruno Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. There is no such confusion. I haven't seen anyone confusing these. She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite. But, If she had of said that you'd both be

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-25 Thread chris peck
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

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-25 Thread chris peck
) 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 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

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-24 Thread chris peck
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

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-24 Thread chris peck
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

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-24 Thread chris peck
Hi Quentin That's nonsense, The point wasn't whether you think its nonsense or not. I couldn't care less about that. we were arguing about whether there are Oxford Dons who adopt the same standpoint as me, and given your little outburst above I think you've just discovered that there are.

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-23 Thread chris peck
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 accident it duplicates you, and sends you to both. This effectively

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-23 Thread chris peck
Hi Quentin then I can't see how you could still agree with many world interpretation and reject probability, that's not consistent... unless of course, you reject MWI. I definitely wouldn't say I accept MWI. But even so, not everyone who does accept it agrees that there is subjective

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-20 Thread chris peck
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 transported :) A malfunction causes you to be duplicated and sent to both

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-20 Thread chris peck
Hi Bruno By and large you didn't get my response to Quentin and largely the comments you made didn't actually address the comments I was making, or the questions I was asking Quentin. It seems more as if you were addressing comments you hoped I was making but didn't. With respect then I've

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-20 Thread chris peck
+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

RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-19 Thread chris peck
Hi Quentin They don't pose problem in this experiment and in the question asked. So I'll try one last time, and will try à la Jesse, with simple yes/no questions and explanation from your part. So I will first describe the setup and will suppose for the argument that what we will do

RE: What are numbers? What is math?

2014-02-18 Thread chris peck
how can facts exist that are not grounded in observation at some point? Russell and Liz are wandering around the countryside and Liz points at the ground and says: there's a gold coin buried right there. Russell says: no there isn't They both walk on without looking. And in the subsequent

RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas

2014-02-13 Thread chris peck
Hi Quentin I do not, valid critics are valid, By definition mate. but when you point to someone the inconsistency in his argument and that he maintains for years the same invalid argument that means that person does not want to argue, he wants to defend a position at all costs, that's

RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas

2014-02-13 Thread chris peck
Hi Bruno Come on, the poor guy tried hard since two years, and has convinced only him That's a good way of spinning the fact that for two years it is in reality you who has failed to convince him. All the best Chris From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas

2014-02-13 Thread chris peck
Hi Liz Personally, I feel that objections to comp on the basis of what we can and can't do with our present technology are a bit hair splitting, or perhaps simply evading the issue. Anyone who has accepted the MWI has accepted that duplication is possible. my objections were to do with the

RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas

2014-02-11 Thread chris peck
Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument) and I invited him to elaborate, as that might give possible lightening. He did not comply, and I was beginning that UDA was problematical for people named Chris. I think Clark should elaborate

RE: Films I think people on this forum might like

2014-02-04 Thread chris peck
you guys should check out Dark City (has a platonic reality isn't really real thing going on) Moon (has a memory/identity/AI thing going on) Source Code (has a 'its just numbers being computed' thing going on) Tarkovsky's Solaris and Stalker are also pretty stunning if you can handle 10

RE: Global warming silliness

2013-11-14 Thread chris peck
I'm not an expert on climate change. I know a couple of things though. I know that according to a fairly large scientific consensus the planet might be getting hotter. I know that these predictions are based on flawed models of the weather system and how it operates. I also know that whilst

RE: Global warming silliness

2013-11-13 Thread chris peck
http://adaptationresourcekit.squarespace.com/storage/climate%20change%20cartoons_better%20world.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1302730968594 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:48:50 -0800 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

RE: Step 3

2013-10-29 Thread chris peck
Hi Jason (again) in your response to Brent: Personally I believe no theory that aims to attach persons to one psychological or physiological continuity can be successful. ok, but in Bruno's step 3 it is taken as axiomatic that you survive in both branches because there is a continuity of

RE: For John Clark

2013-10-28 Thread chris peck
usage, in which you have no uncertainty because you know future chris pecks, following duplication, will individually experience all possible outcomes, such certainty ignores the personal feelings of the original Chris peck stepping into the duplicator and experiencing himself becoming one

RE: About wisdom

2013-10-24 Thread chris peck
I thought knowledge was knowing that tomatoes are fruit, and wisdom was knowing not to put them in a fruit salad. From: sw...@post.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:12:57 -0700 Subject: About wisdom To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Wisdom is the art of coming up with believable excuses

RE: Douglas Hofstadter Article

2013-10-24 Thread chris peck
yep. organity is emergent. Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:46:54 +1300 Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 25 October 2013 14:31, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Looking at natural presences, like atoms or galaxies, the

RE: Douglas Hofstadter Article

2013-10-24 Thread chris peck
The alien might be completely confident in his judgement, having a brain made of exotic matter. He would argue that however complex its behaviour, a being made of ordinary matter that evolved naturally could not possibly have an understanding of what it is doing. Aliens don't matter. They can be

RE: Douglas Hofstadter Article

2013-10-24 Thread chris peck
On 10/24/2013 8:09 PM, chris peck wrote: At this juncture then it becomes moot whether the computer is learning or thinking about grammar. It is a matter of philosophical taste. It certainly isn't learning or thinking as we learnt or thought when

RE: Douglas Hofstadter Article

2013-10-24 Thread chris peck
by changing its definition. Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:52:39 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article On 10/24/2013 8:41 PM, chris peck wrote: Unfortunately we don't even have

RE: What's my name and what do you think I need to help me along my journey?

2013-10-23 Thread chris peck
Stephen Lin. A new bike? Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:43:32 -0400 Subject: Re: What's my name and what do you think I need to help me along my journey? From: yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Are you the famous basketball player from Harvard, then the Knicks and now

RE: For John Clark

2013-10-17 Thread chris peck
of http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136 There are multiple experiencers, each having possibly different experiences. For some class of those experiencers you can attach the label chris peck. This allows you to say: chris peck experiences all outcomes but that does not imply each experiencer

RE: For John Clark

2013-10-17 Thread chris peck
Hi Jason Subject refers to the I, the indexical first-person. The word 'I' is indexical, like 'now' and 'here'. The experience isn't indexical, its just me. This page offers some examples of the distinction ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/#PurIndTruDem ). Thanks. Im

RE: For John Clark

2013-10-17 Thread chris peck
Hi Bruno Hi Bruno The uncertainty is objective How can uncertainty be objective Bruno? Uncertainty is a predicate applicable to experiences only. To insist, I use first person indeterminacy instead of subjective indeterminacy In step 3 you ask the reader to assess what he would 'feel'

RE: For John Clark

2013-10-16 Thread chris peck
But that feeling only arises from the assumption (or gut feeling) that there is only one observer, both before and after the measurement. Quite, it arises from a mistake which would vanish in a true 'comp practitioner'. The feeling that although I would become each observer and therefore

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

2013-10-09 Thread chris peck
Hi Bruno I don't see why. There is a chance of 1/2 to feel oneself in M, and of 1/2 to feel oneself in W, but the probability is 1 (assuming comp, the protocol, etc.) to find oneself alive. This begs the question. And the probability of finding oneself alive is 1 in both your view and

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

2013-10-09 Thread chris peck
Hi Liz This is not, however, how people normally view these matters. The physicist feels that he had a (say) 50% chance of him observing spin-up despite his knowledge of the MWI, and I guess Helsinki man feels the same way about arriving in Moscow, if only because our brains are wired to

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

2013-10-09 Thread chris peck
Hi Brent But one of the essential things about quantum mechanics is futures are uncertain even give complete knowldge. I disagree. This is still 'up for grabs' and dependent on whether the interpretation is indeterminsitic (copenhagen,etc) or deterministic (MWI). Its a feature of MWI that

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

2013-10-09 Thread chris peck
Hi Liz Oh dear, I think I will go and lie down now. (Or then again, I won't...) Precisely. Being a true MWI believer you can be certain of both. :) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:35:56 +1300 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? From: lizj...@gmail.com To:

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

2013-10-07 Thread chris peck
Hi Bruno Are you saying that the step 3 would provide a logical reason to say no to the doctor, and thus abandoning comp? I'm saying only the suicidal would expect a 50/50 chance of experiencing Moscow (or Washington) after teleportation and then say yes to the doctor. regards From:

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

2013-10-07 Thread chris peck
...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 14:03:53 +0200 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 2013/10/7 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com Hi Bruno Are you saying that the step 3 would provide a logical reason to say no to the doctor

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

2013-10-06 Thread chris peck
Hi Brent This is true, but it's also something Bruno has said many times. If comp is correct (to the extent that the mind is a computation, at least) then this is happening all the time. Heraclitus was right, you aren't the same person even from one second to the next. I think Heraclitus

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

2013-10-03 Thread chris peck
a bad name? On 4 October 2013 06:28, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.comwrote: You were kind enough to let the list know, along with Chris Peck, that the flaw in the reasoning concerning step 3 of the UDA is it sucks. Unless you guys backtrack and quit abusing the fact

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

2013-10-02 Thread chris peck
Hi Bruno [JC] Because step 3 sucks. [Bruno] Why? You have not yet make a convincing point on this. His point is convincing me. regards. Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 23:18:07 +0200 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? From: te...@telmomenezes.com To:

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

2013-10-02 Thread chris peck
Hi Liz Is there something wrong with quantum indeterminacy? Apart from the fact the MWI removes it? And that that is the point of MWI? And that probability questions in MWI are notoriously thorny? This is why I resort to the Quantum Suicide experiment or better still to Quantum Russian

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

2013-10-01 Thread chris peck
Hi Liz The scientist naturally assigns a 50% chance to each outcome, even though he knows that he's duplicated by worlds splitting, and that in reality he will see both But there seems to be a lot of trouble with the comp version for some reason. Bruno has a meeting in washington

  1   2   >