Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: > Suppose that the environmental conditions were identical only for the > first 50min of the hour. > Then the split happened after 50min, obviously. > And both those consciousness'es could access identical memories of the > first 50min. > Obvious

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 4/5/2012 1:20 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > You can be conscious of being here and now. This is a key element in our disagreement. I maintain that by itself a consciousness has no way to directly tell the difference between

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You can be conscious of being here and now. > This is a key element in our disagreement. I maintain that by itself a consciousness has no way to directly tell the difference between the hear and now and the there and then. For example if you were to bu

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 04 Apr 2012, at 23:46, Joseph Knight wrote: Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/4/4 Bruno Marchal On 04 Apr 2012, at 18:26, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip If any one else can help Joh

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2012/4/4 Bruno Marchal > > On 04 Apr 2012, at 18:26, John Clark wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> > You confuse "consciousness of being here and now" with "consciousness >>

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 04 Apr 2012, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote: On 4/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2012, at 18:26, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip > By comp we can simulate Moscow and Washington precisely enough so that you cannot see the dif

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 04 Apr 2012, at 21:04, David Nyman wrote: On 4 April 2012 18:55, Bruno Marchal wrote: If any one else can help John K Clark to make his point, please help him. If some people believe, like I begin to believe, that John Clark only fake to not understand, and that I should abandon to try

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 04 Apr 2012, at 20:45, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/4/4 Bruno Marchal If any one else can help John K Clark to make his point, please help him. If some people believe, like I begin to believe, that John Clark only fake to not understand, and that I should abandon to try, please giv

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 4/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Apr 2012, at 18:26, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > You confuse "consciousness of being here and now" with "consciousness would be here and now". How in the world c

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 4 April 2012 18:55, Bruno Marchal wrote: > If any one else can help John K Clark to make his point, please help him. If > some people believe, like I begin to believe, that John Clark only fake to > not understand, and that I should abandon to try, please give your opinion, > because I begin t

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012/4/4 Bruno Marchal > > On 04 Apr 2012, at 18:26, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > You confuse "consciousness of being here and now" with "consciousness >> would be here and now". >> > > How in the world could anybody be confused by a idea state

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 04 Apr 2012, at 18:26, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > You confuse "consciousness of being here and now" with "consciousness would be here and now". How in the world could anybody be confused by a idea stated as crystal clearly as you just d

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > You confuse "consciousness of being here and now" with "consciousness > would be here and now". > How in the world could anybody be confused by a idea stated as crystal clearly as you just did ? > > >> And the only answer you can receive w

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 04 Apr 2012, at 06:05, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The point is that comp predicts white noise. That something else predicts white noise too is not relevant in the proof. So in the setup the screen changes at RANDOM and comp predicts w

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The point is that comp predicts white noise. That something else predicts > white noise too is not relevant in the proof. > So in the setup the screen changes at RANDOM and comp predicts white noise will be the most likely result, and you t

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 02 Apr 2012, at 18:40, meekerdb wrote: On 4/2/2012 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: > If Everett is right the probability must be derived from the statistics of measurements *as described by the wave evolution*. If Everett is right then you can use the square of the absolute value of the

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 02 Apr 2012, at 18:14, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> you've added tons of bells and whistles but for all the complex convolutions you have not added one single bit of additional information about what is likely to happen. > On the contrary, comp entai

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 4/2/2012 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: > If Everett is right the probability must be derived from the statistics of measurements *as described by the wave evolution*. If Everett is right then you can use the square of the absolute value of the Schrodinger Wave Equation to help you gue

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> you've added tons of bells and whistles but for all the complex >> convolutions you have not added one single bit of additional information >> about what is likely to happen. >> > > > On the contrary, comp entails that you should expect white noice

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 4/1/2012 1:28 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 1 April 2012 21:02, meekerdb wrote: I'm all in favor of epistemology first. But that means point-of-view comes first, and only some things happen comes second. The primitive, micro-physical ensemble is an ontological assumption way down the line. N

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 1 April 2012 21:02, meekerdb wrote: > I'm all in favor of epistemology first.  But that means point-of-view comes > first, and only some things happen comes second.  The primitive, > micro-physical ensemble is an ontological assumption way down the line. No argument from me on that! But, in

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 4/1/2012 4:55 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 31 March 2012 01:09, meekerdb wrote: That seems like conjuring a mystery out of nothing. Is your question why is my observational perspective associated with my brain? It's only "a mystery out of nothing" if you have already accepted as unproblematic

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

Hello Stephen, On 31 Mar 2012, at 18:29, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/31/2012 3:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp is just the assumption that we are machine, to said it shortly. Then it is shown as a consequence that not only we cannot neglect the physical reality, but that we have to ret

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 31 Mar 2012, at 18:24, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You should care to be able to answer the simple question: "what do you expect to feel in the multiplication-movie experience" I would expect to feel exactly the same as if duplicating chambers and

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 31 March 2012 01:09, meekerdb wrote: > That seems like conjuring a mystery out of nothing. Is your question why is > my observational perspective associated with my brain? It's only "a mystery out of nothing" if you have already accepted as unproblematic the primitive existence of "my brain".

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 1 April 2012 07:04, meekerdb wrote: > I think he just proposes pruning the density matrix cross-terms by some > mechanism.  Once they are gone then the realized branch is just 'selected' >  stochasitcally per the Born rule.  I've often contemplated such a move > based on the idea that there be

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/31/2012 11:11 AM, David Nyman wrote: The alternative to this analysis is to abandon MWI (or comp) as inconsistent with the empirical facts. This is the tack Kent in fact adopts, proposing a mechanism for the pruning of all but one of the alternative branches, I think he just proposes prun

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 31 March 2012 17:24, John Clark wrote: >> > You should care to be able to answer the simple question: "what do you >> > expect to feel in the multiplication-movie experience" > > I would expect to feel exactly the same as if duplicating chambers and > multiple copies of myself were not involve

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/31/2012 3:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp is just the assumption that we are machine, to said it shortly. Then it is shown as a consequence that not only we cannot neglect the physical reality, but that we have to retrieve it from arithmetic, without using any probabilistic *selection*

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You should care to be able to answer the simple question: "what do you > expect to feel in the multiplication-movie experience" > I would expect to feel exactly the same as if duplicating chambers and multiple copies of myself were not involved. If yo

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 31 Mar 2012, at 01:23, David Nyman wrote: On 30 March 2012 19:54, meekerdb wrote: The problem with all this (as Kent makes explicit) is that there is nothing in the mathematics of the "game physics" that corresponds to this kind of momentary selection of subjective localisation. Unfortuna

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 30 Mar 2012, at 23:29, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/30/2012 2:48 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/30/2012 4:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/30/2012 3:08 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Take my favorite thought experiment. Suppose I design two Mars Rov

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/30/2012 4:23 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 30 March 2012 19:54, meekerdb wrote: >> The problem with all this (as Kent makes explicit) is that there is >> nothing in the mathematics of the "game physics" that corresponds to >> this kind of momentary selection of subjective localisation. >>

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 30 March 2012 19:54, meekerdb wrote: >> The problem with all this (as Kent makes explicit) is that there is >> nothing in the mathematics of the "game physics" that corresponds to >> this kind of momentary selection of subjective localisation. >> Unfortunately, his own proposal doesn't really

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/30/2012 2:29 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/30/2012 2:48 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/30/2012 4:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/30/2012 3:08 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Take my favorite thought experiment. Suppose I design two Mars Rovers and I wan

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/30/2012 2:48 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/30/2012 4:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/30/2012 3:08 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Take my favorite thought experiment. Suppose I design two Mars Rovers and I want them to coordinate their movements in order

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/30/2012 4:38 AM, David Nyman wrote: The problem with all this (as Kent makes explicit) is that there is nothing in the mathematics of the "game physics" that corresponds to this kind of momentary selection of subjective localisation. Unfortunately, his own proposal doesn't really solve the u

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/30/2012 4:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/30/2012 3:08 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Take my favorite thought experiment. Suppose I design two Mars Rovers and I want them to coordinate their movements in order to round up Martian sheep. I can easi

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 30 March 2012 10:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: > David, > Selection was even earlier proposed by Leibniz in his Monadology philosophy > along with many other principles about half of which have been confirmed by > scientific theory and experimentation. > http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 30 March 2012 03:14, meekerdb wrote: > My reading of Kent is that he rejects MWI.  I don't think he believes there > is a single conscious copy and the rest are zombies; he believes there's > just one world and it is 'selected' probabilistically. Yes, I understand that. My point is that Kent

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/30/2012 3:08 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Take my favorite thought experiment. Suppose I design two Mars Rovers and I want them to coordinate their movements in order to round up Martian sheep. I can easily distribute the artificial intelligence be

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

David, Selection was even earlier proposed by Leibniz in his Monadology philosophy along with many other principles about half of which have been confirmed by scientific theory and experimentation. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/leibniz.htm Richard David Ruquist On T

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 29 Mar 2012, at 21:47, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 12:02 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Mar 2012, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. I will ask you to do the "hairsplitting" about that "YOU", that you are using here,

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/29/2012 10:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Take my favorite thought experiment. Suppose I design two Mars Rovers and I want them to coordinate their movements in order to round up Martian sheep. I can easily distribute the artificial intelligence between the two of them, using data links

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/29/2012 11:46 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 7:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/29/2012 9:20 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 March 2012 20:47, meekerdb wrote: You don't know that. It's an assumption based on the idea that conscious experience is something a certain physical body, a br

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/29/2012 7:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/29/2012 9:20 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 March 2012 20:47, meekerdb wrote: You don't know that. It's an assumption based on the idea that conscious experience is something a certain physical body, a brain, does. But if conscious experience

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/29/2012 9:20 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 March 2012 20:47, meekerdb wrote: You don't know that. It's an assumption based on the idea that conscious experience is something a certain physical body, a brain, does. But if conscious experience is a process then it is certainly possible to

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/29/2012 6:20 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 March 2012 20:47, meekerdb wrote: You don't know that. It's an assumption based on the idea that conscious experience is something a certain physical body, a brain, does. But if conscious experience is a process then it is certainly possible to

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 29 March 2012 20:47, meekerdb wrote: > You don't know that.  It's an assumption based on the idea that conscious > experience is something a certain physical body, a brain, does.  But if > conscious experience is a process then it is certainly possible to create a > process that is aware of be

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/29/2012 12:02 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Mar 2012, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. I will ask you to do the "hairsplitting" about that "YOU", that you are using here, so as to convince me and others that it refute

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 29 Mar 2012, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote: On 3/29/2012 10:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. I will ask you to do the "hairsplitting" about that "YOU", that you are using here, so as to convince me and others that it refutes indeed the indeterminacy about the first

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 29 Mar 2012, at 18:46, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Comp (and MWI) is a deterministic theory. Many Worlds is deterministic but I don't know about "comp" because "comp" is a homemade term never completely defined and used on this list Comp is "jus

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/29/2012 10:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. I will ask you to do the "hairsplitting" about that "YOU", that you are using here, so as to convince me and others that it refutes indeed the indeterminacy about the first person experience displayed in the WM duplicat

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 29 Mar 2012, at 18:31, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > Identical bodies have identical minds, Yes. >but identical minds can have different bodies. Who cares? It's consciousness I'm interested in. We discuss only on the consequence of the comp hypothesis

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Comp (and MWI) is a deterministic theory. > Many Worlds is deterministic but I don't know about "comp" because "comp" is a homemade term never completely defined and used on this list and nowhere else. I don't even know if I agree with "comp". I wil

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > Identical bodies have identical minds, > Yes. >but identical minds can have different bodies. > Who cares? It's consciousness I'm interested in. > The universe does not know you are John Clark. You do. > In my symmetrical room example I know who J

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 28 Mar 2012, at 19:29, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> If 2 different consciousnesses can not be distinguished in my symmetrical room from the first person point of view or from the third person point of view then it seems pointless to insist

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012/3/28 John Clark > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> If 2 different consciousnesses can not be distinguished in my >> symmetrical room from the first person point of view or from the third >> person point of view then it seems pointless to insist that there are >

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> If 2 different consciousnesses can not be distinguished in my > symmetrical room from the first person point of view or from the third > person point of view then it seems pointless to insist that there are > really 2 and not just one mi

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 27 Mar 2012, at 02:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 26, 11:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2012, at 22:59, Craig Weinberg wrote: What is it you think my theory wants you not to ask? Where does matter come from? Matter comes from sense, as does 'where' and 'come from'. I can

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 28 Mar 2012, at 06:07, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > so you do get the point of the difference of the 3-view and the 1- view, Truer words were never spoken. If 2 different consciousnesses can not be distinguished in my symmetrical room from the first

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > so you do get the point of the difference of the 3-view and the 1-view, > Truer words were never spoken. If 2 different consciousnesses can not be distinguished in my symmetrical room from the first person point of view or from the third person point

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 3/23/2012 3:44 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: > >> On 3/21/2012 8:16 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Stephen P. King >> wrote: >> >>> >>>

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 27 Mar 2012, at 06:14, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Give me a example of 2 conscious beings that are identical by what you call "3-view" but NOT identical by what you call "1-view", show they deserve different names, do that and I might

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/26/2012 9:14 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: >> Give me a example of 2 conscious beings that are identical by what you call "3-view" but NOT identical by what you call "1-view", show they deserve

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Give me a example of 2 conscious beings that are identical by what you >> call "3-view" but NOT identical by what you call "1-view", show they >> deserve different names, do that and I might get a idea what you're talking >> about; but do

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Mar 26, 11:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 25 Mar 2012, at 22:59, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > What is it you think my theory wants you not to ask? > > Where does matter come from? Matter comes from sense, as does 'where' and 'come from'. > Where does sense come from? Everywhere Craig -- Y

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 24 Mar 2012, at 21:10, meekerdb wrote: On 3/24/2012 12:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > You keep asking who is this "you" Yes. > it is the usual you, as the one you use in your everyday The word "you" works fine in the usual everyday world, No, please answer the last part of the messag

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 24 Mar 2012, at 21:21, meekerdb wrote: On 3/24/2012 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Google on "theaetetus". Socrates asked to Theaetetus to define "knowledge". Theatetus gives many definitions that Socrates critizes/refutes, each of them. One of them consists in defining knowledge by be

Re: First person indeterminacy (Re: COMP theology)

Hi John, On 24 Mar 2012, at 21:05, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, I did not branch out into the 1st line of my 1st quote of your sentence. Not that 2^16 is 'a' number, but "parallel" gives the idea of identicity (at least in main qualia) which are (both) human talk. (Of course that's what we can

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 25 Mar 2012, at 06:09, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >Then what the hell IS the point you are making? > That comp entails 1-indeterminacy. Comp entails indeterminacy PERIOD. Comp is widely known as a 3-deterministic theory. Give me a example of 2 c

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Mar 24, 3:58 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > OK, nice. Many confuse comp (I am a machine) and digital physics > (reality is a machine), but comp makes reality, whatever it can be, > being NOT a machine, nor the output of a machine. It is more a > perspective effect on infinities of computations.

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > In the WM experience(s), what causes the first person difference is the > first person differentiation, into living in W and living in M. > Yes, but then the 2 will have different experiences and have different memories and their brain woul

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >Then what the hell IS the point you are making? >> > > > That comp entails 1-indeterminacy. > Comp entails indeterminacy PERIOD. Give me a example of 2 conscious beings that are identical by what you call "3-view" but NOT identical by what you call "

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/24/2012 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Google on "theaetetus". Socrates asked to Theaetetus to define "knowledge". Theatetus gives many definitions that Socrates critizes/refutes, each of them. One of them consists in defining knowledge by belief, in "modern time" the mental state, or the

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/24/2012 12:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > You keep asking who is this "you" Yes. > it is the usual you, as the one you use in your everyday The word "you" works fine in the usual everyday world, No, please answer the last part of the message. The everyday wo

Re: First person indeterminacy (Re: COMP theology)

Bruno, I did not branch out into the 1st line of my 1st quote of your sentence. Not that 2^16 is 'a' number, but "parallel" gives the idea of identicity (at least in main qualia) which are (both) human talk. (Of course that's what we can do). I am glad that you agreed with my (generalized!) remark.

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 24 Mar 2012, at 18:44, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > From a 3rd POV, there is no indeterminacy, From a "3rd POV" there is ALWAYS indeterminacy, we don't know for sure what the thing we're looking at will do. From a "1 POV" there is ALWAY

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012/3/24 John Clark > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > From a 3rd POV, there is no indeterminacy, > > > From a "3rd POV" there is ALWAYS indeterminacy, > No in the f***ing though experiment you always want to change as you see fit. > we don't know for sure what th

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > From a 3rd POV, there is no indeterminacy, >From a "3rd POV" there is ALWAYS indeterminacy, we don't know for sure what the thing we're looking at will do. From a "1 POV" there is ALWAYS indeterminacy, we don't know for sure what we will

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Mar 24, 4:32 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 23 Mar 2012, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote: > >>> How does a digital artificial intelligence make sense of it's world > >>> without converting or sampling every truth about that world > >>> available > >>> to it into digital? > > >> First, the fact t

Re: First person indeterminacy (Re: COMP theology)

On 23 Mar 2012, at 17:34, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: thanks for the considerate reply. Let me pick some of your sentences: 2^16 parallel universes needed to implement the quantum superposition - used in Shor's quantum algorithm to find the prime factors of numbers.

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 23 Mar 2012, at 22:14, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You are still avoiding the WM duplication. There is no spliting in Many Worlds unless something is different, if 2 universes are identical then they have merged and there is now only one universe.

Re: Fwd: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/23/2012 6:47 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: *Joseph Knight* <mailto:joseph.9...@gmail.com>> Date: Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:45 PM Subject: Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology) To: Joseph Knight mailto:joseph.9...@gmail.com&

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/23/2012 3:44 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 3/21/2012 8:16 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: Dear J

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

>From a 3rd POV, there is no indeterminacy, we know there will be two you after the duplication. >From your 1st POV, even if you know it, you'll (both you) still feel singular, and the you who was asked before the experience what he expect to feel after the duplication was unable to predict which

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You are still avoiding the WM duplication. > There is no spliting in Many Worlds unless something is different, if 2 universes are identical then they have merged and there is now only one universe. >> the copy and the original agree on what occurr

Re: First person indeterminacy (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/23/2012 12:34 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: thanks for the considerate reply. Let me pick some of your sentences: /2^16 parallel universes needed to implement the quantum superposition// - used in Shor's quantum algorithm to find the prime factors of numbers/. I would not limit

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Mar 23, 1:08 am, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/22/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 8:28 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > >> On 3/22/2012 4:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >>> On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, meekerdb    wrote: > On 3/22/2012 2:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > On

Re: First person indeterminacy (Re: COMP theology)

Bruno: thanks for the considerate reply. Let me pick some of your sentences: *2^16 parallel universes needed to implement the quantum superposition** - used in Shor's quantum algorithm to find the prime factors of numbers*. I would not limit the numbers and fix the qual

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 22 Mar 2012, at 21:31, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> This illustrates the problem I have with your ideas, it's not your mathematics it's the assumption you make right at the start which is the foundation for everything else. > Which assumption? Your

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/22/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 8:28 pm, meekerdb wrote: On 3/22/2012 4:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, meekerdbwrote: On 3/22/2012 2:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 4:58 pm, meekerdb wrote: Then you agree with me: AI cannot

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Mar 22, 8:28 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/22/2012 4:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > >> On 3/22/2012 2:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >>> On Mar 22, 4:58 pm, meekerdb    wrote: > > Then you agree with me: AI cannot make sense out of i

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/22/2012 4:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, meekerdb wrote: On 3/22/2012 2:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 4:58 pm, meekerdbwrote: Then you agree with me: AI cannot make sense out of its world without converting or sampling it digitally. That which it fails to

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/22/2012 2:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Mar 22, 4:58 pm, meekerdb  wrote: > > >>> Then you agree with me: AI cannot make sense out of its world without > >>> converting or sampling it digitally. That which it fails to digitize > >>> is lost. > >>

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Mar 22, 11:47 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 22 Mar 2012, at 03:00, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Mar 21, 3:23 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 21 Mar 2012, at 17:40, Craig Weinberg wrote (partially). > > > It's not just 'we' but our entire participation in the world > > that is >

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/22/2012 2:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 4:58 pm, meekerdb wrote: Then you agree with me: AI cannot make sense out of its world without converting or sampling it digitally. That which it fails to digitize is lost. Sure. What you don't see you don't see - which is almost all of

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Mar 22, 4:58 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > Then you agree with me: AI cannot make sense out of its world without > > converting or sampling it digitally. That which it fails to digitize > > is lost. > > Sure.  What you don't see you don't see - which is almost all of the EM > spectrum.  Of > course

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/22/2012 1:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Mar 22, 10:46 am, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Craig Weinbergwrote: > > > How does a digital artificial intelligence make sense of it's world > > Superbly! A digital AI can make sense of it's world far better than you

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Mar 22, 10:46 am, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > How does a digital artificial intelligence make sense of it's world > > Superbly! A digital AI can make sense of it's world far better than you > can; if you doubt that statement just try competi

  1   2   3   4   >