Re: First Person Indeterminacy (new attempt) (was Theology or not theology)
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The experience consists in being duplicated each day, for ten days in a row. Oh dear, Is this really necessary? He is duplicated in two similar rooms, except for a big 1 painted in the wall of one of these rooms, and a big 0 painted on the corresponding wall in the other rooms I hope you do realize that if one copy sees a 0 and another copy sees a 1 then the identical copies are no longer identical and they differentiate into different people. If that's the point you're trying to make there is no need for things to be so elaborate. The question which is asked to Arthur, specifically, is to predict if he will see a 0, or a 1 on the wall, and if he will get a cup of tea. I haven't even finished reading this post but already I see a potential pronoun land mine, the dreaded he, a word that threatens to render the entire exercise useless. I duplicate him in the two rooms, and then I wake up and interview them, but separately, and this each day, reiterating the duplication for all the resulting copies. Obviously I will have a lot of work the tenth day, because I will have to interview 1024 copies, or more simply to review 1024 diaries, I can't help but think that adding this ridiculous complication was done to hide, perhaps even from yourself, that all that is going on here is that there is no way for poor old Arthur to make a prediction if he will see a 0 or a 1 that is better than the laws of probability. In other words ALL the different Arthurs (and they are all different because they all saw different things) can only guess if they will see a 0 or a 1. What is new here? A-110 Hmm... perhaps 010101? A-111 No idea what the hell is going on I'll tell you exactly what the hell is going on, different people see different things. Is this really a revolutionary discovery? Arthur try to predict his 1-stories, And in general Turing Machines like Arthur can not predict their 1-stories, they don't know if they will stop until they do. I ask again what is new here? Note that you don't even need to attribute consciousness to Arthur. Obviously, no experiment can directly observe consciousness. I can't say it more easily and clearly: the 1-person indeterminacy is the inability to predict the content of the personal diary Well I can say it more easily and clearly, 1-person indeterminacy is indeterminacy period. And actually, the inability to predict the content of the personal diary is not only a trait we share with Turing Machines it is the only definition of free will (other than a sound made by the mouth) that is not circular gibberish. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: First Person Indeterminacy (new attempt) (was Theology or not theology)
2012/3/17 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The experience consists in being duplicated each day, for ten days in a row. Oh dear, Is this really necessary? He is duplicated in two similar rooms, except for a big 1 painted in the wall of one of these rooms, and a big 0 painted on the corresponding wall in the other rooms I hope you do realize that if one copy sees a 0 and another copy sees a 1 then the identical copies are no longer identical and they differentiate into different people. If that's the point you're trying to make there is no need for things to be so elaborate. The question which is asked to Arthur, specifically, is to predict if he will see a 0, or a 1 on the wall, and if he will get a cup of tea. I haven't even finished reading this post but already I see a potential pronoun land mine, the dreaded he, a word that threatens to render the entire exercise useless. I duplicate him in the two rooms, and then I wake up and interview them, but separately, and this each day, reiterating the duplication for all the resulting copies. Obviously I will have a lot of work the tenth day, because I will have to interview 1024 copies, or more simply to review 1024 diaries, I can't help but think that adding this ridiculous complication was done to hide, perhaps even from yourself, that all that is going on here is that there is no way for poor old Arthur to make a prediction if he will see a 0 or a 1 that is better than the laws of probability. In other words ALL the different Arthurs (and they are all different because they all saw different things) can only guess if they will see a 0 or a 1. What is new here? A-110 Hmm... perhaps 010101? A-111 No idea what the hell is going on I'll tell you exactly what the hell is going on, different people see different things. Is this really a revolutionary discovery? Arthur try to predict his 1-stories, And in general Turing Machines like Arthur can not predict their 1-stories, they don't know if they will stop until they do. I ask again what is new here? Note that you don't even need to attribute consciousness to Arthur. Obviously, no experiment can directly observe consciousness. I can't say it more easily and clearly: the 1-person indeterminacy is the inability to predict the content of the personal diary Well I can say it more easily and clearly, 1-person indeterminacy is indeterminacy period. No... don't you see that in MWI (or comp) context, the SWE is determinist and indeterminacy is on the observer ? 3 POV determinist (SWE) 1 POV indeterminate (=== measure problem). Quentin And actually, the inability to predict the content of the personal diary is not only a trait we share with Turing Machines it is the only definition of free will (other than a sound made by the mouth) that is not circular gibberish. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: First Person Indeterminacy (new attempt) (was Theology or not theology)
Oh my god, I'm going to scream. Do you think it's possible John and Craig are actually *one and the same person*, some kind of evil mastermind über-troll intent on driving us all over the brink of sanity? What's clear now is that John has painted himself into a corner from which he can never retreat, however absurd his position becomes. He will argue black is white until he's blue in the face in order to avoid ever having to say, Oh, I get it now! I misunderstood your point. One wise thing Craig said: I suggest you stop reading my posts. That was excellent advice, my mental health rapidly improved. Now that I realise that John = Craig (perhaps duplicates of the same wicked mind in Helsinki and Moscow), I think I'm going to apply the same policy to John too. On Mar 18, 3:07 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The experience consists in being duplicated each day, for ten days in a row. Oh dear, Is this really necessary? He is duplicated in two similar rooms, except for a big 1 painted in the wall of one of these rooms, and a big 0 painted on the corresponding wall in the other rooms I hope you do realize that if one copy sees a 0 and another copy sees a 1 then the identical copies are no longer identical and they differentiate into different people. If that's the point you're trying to make there is no need for things to be so elaborate. The question which is asked to Arthur, specifically, is to predict if he will see a 0, or a 1 on the wall, and if he will get a cup of tea. I haven't even finished reading this post but already I see a potential pronoun land mine, the dreaded he, a word that threatens to render the entire exercise useless. I duplicate him in the two rooms, and then I wake up and interview them, but separately, and this each day, reiterating the duplication for all the resulting copies. Obviously I will have a lot of work the tenth day, because I will have to interview 1024 copies, or more simply to review 1024 diaries, I can't help but think that adding this ridiculous complication was done to hide, perhaps even from yourself, that all that is going on here is that there is no way for poor old Arthur to make a prediction if he will see a 0 or a 1 that is better than the laws of probability. In other words ALL the different Arthurs (and they are all different because they all saw different things) can only guess if they will see a 0 or a 1. What is new here? A-110 Hmm... perhaps 010101? A-111 No idea what the hell is going on I'll tell you exactly what the hell is going on, different people see different things. Is this really a revolutionary discovery? Arthur try to predict his 1-stories, And in general Turing Machines like Arthur can not predict their 1-stories, they don't know if they will stop until they do. I ask again what is new here? Note that you don't even need to attribute consciousness to Arthur. Obviously, no experiment can directly observe consciousness. I can't say it more easily and clearly: the 1-person indeterminacy is the inability to predict the content of the personal diary Well I can say it more easily and clearly, 1-person indeterminacy is indeterminacy period. And actually, the inability to predict the content of the personal diary is not only a trait we share with Turing Machines it is the only definition of free will (other than a sound made by the mouth) that is not circular gibberish. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
