On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The point is that with the step 3 protocol, you (the H-guy) can never
predict among {W, M}, if the result will be I feel being the W-man, or I
feel being the M-man.
That's because neither will happen, however I the
On 16 Oct 2013, at 16:46, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The point is that with the step 3 protocol, you (the H-guy) can
never predict among {W, M}, if the result will be I feel being the
W-man, or I feel being the M-man.
Here's an etext! Happy hunting :)
http://ia700700.us.archive.org/18/items/QuantumElectrodynamics/Feynman-QuantumElectrodynamics.pdf
On 17 October 2013 10:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Oct 2013, at 16:46, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:39 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
I agree that if that one bit of information that they both see is not
identical then the 2 men are no longer identical either and it becomes
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
Alright, but this again leaves us at a crossroad:
1) You believe that teleportation is fundamentally impossible
No.
2) You believe that teleportation is possible
Yes.
in which case you accept the thought
2013/10/15 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
Alright, but this again leaves us at a crossroad:
1) You believe that teleportation is fundamentally impossible
No.
2) You believe that teleportation is possible
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
what you say confirms that both the W-man and the M-man will assess that
they were unable to predict the result of opening the door
Bruno I really didn't need your help on that, I already knew that I can't
always
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
Are you saying that John Clark after going through a (duplicating
teleporter cannot use anymore the indexical 'I' when talking about himself
No.
me myself and I John K Clark
--
You received this message because
On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:18, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
what you say confirms that both the W-man and the M-man will
assess that they were unable to predict the result of opening the door
Bruno I really didn't need your help
On 13 Oct 2013, at 18:58, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-man) get one bit
of information,
I agree that if that one bit of information that they both see is
not identical
On 13 Oct 2013, at 20:14, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-man) get one bit
of
information,
I
On 14 Oct 2013, at 00:10, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Dear John,
in spite of my reluctance to spend time and energy on that nightmare of
teleportation-related follies - (probably a result of too heavy dinners
after which Q-physicists could not sleep/relax) - and with no intention to
protect John Clark (a decent partner anyway) I may draw a thick
Telmo, entering sci-fi makes the discussion irrelevant.
what if... can e anything I want to show (I almost wrote: prove).
I am also against 'thought experiments' - designed to PROVE things unreal
(=not experienced in real life) - like e.g. the EPR etc., involving
'unfacts'.
By long back-and-forth
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
I agree that if that one bit of information that they both see is not
identical then the 2 men are no longer identical either and it becomes
justified to give them different names.
Ok, so you then also have to
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-man) get one bit of
information,
I agree that if that one bit of information that they both
Dear Telmo,
in spite of my reluctance to spend time and energy on that nightmare of
teleportation-related follies - (probably a result of too heavy dinners
after which Q-physicists could not sleep/relax) - and with no intention to
protect John Clark (a decent partner anyway) I may draw a thick
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-man) get one
On 10 Oct 2013, at 20:35, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The question is will he turn into the Moscow Man or the
Washington Man,
Yes.
Thank you!
and that depends on one thing and one thing only, what
information he
On 10 Oct 2013, at 22:36, LizR wrote:
Both M and W man would have a continuous feeling of identity with H
man. I don't see that you two really have opposing viewpoints,
although as usual I may be missing something.
No I agree. Clark does understand the 1-indeterminacy, as he betrayed
by
On 09 Oct 2013, at 19:23, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
[your] body-copy will be in two places, [you] can feel to be in
only one place.
If the copies are really identical then you feel to be in only one
place (insofar as
with Aristotle theology.
Best,
Bruno
All the best
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:36:12 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 10/9/2013 10:35 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:19 PM, meekerdb meeke
On 10 Oct 2013, at 03:37, LizR wrote:
If Helsinki man understands the situation, he will assign a 100%
probability to him being duplicated and ending in both places.
Similarly a physicist who believes in MWI will assign a 100%
probability to him splitting and observing all possible
of view involved.
Bruno
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:35:56 +1300
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
I still think this is quibbling. I at least believe I know what
Bruno means when he asks H-man to assign
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The question is will he turn into the Moscow Man or the Washington Man,
Yes.
Thank you!
and that depends on one thing and one thing only, what information he
receives.
Not at all.
What do you mean not at all?!
Both M and W man would have a continuous feeling of identity with H man. I
don't see that you two really have opposing viewpoints, although as usual I
may be missing something.
Of course if the brain can't be considered digital at any level (as Kermit
suggests) then this is actually impossible,
On 11 October 2013 13:06, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/10/2013 1:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Both M and W man would have a continuous feeling of identity with H man.
I don't see that you two really have opposing viewpoints, although as usual
I may be missing something.
Of course if
On 10 October 2013 12:25, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
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
On 10/10/2013 5:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 October 2013 13:06, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 10/10/2013 1:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Both M and W man would have a continuous feeling of identity with H
man. I don't
see that you two really have
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
[your] body-copy will be in two places, [you] can feel to be in only one
place.
If the copies are really identical then you feel to be in only one place
(insofar as spatial position has any meaning when talking about
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
How do you explain quantum mechanical probabilities in the Many Worlds
interpretation?
Not very well, assigning probabilities is unquestionably the weakest part
of the Many Worlds theory. True, Everett derived the Born Rule
On 10 October 2013 06:35, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
The Many Worlds interpretation is the best bad explanation of why Quantum
Mechanics works.
Nicely summed up!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
On 10/9/2013 10:35 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
How do you explain quantum mechanical probabilities in the Many Worlds
interpretation?
Not very well, assigning probabilities is unquestionably the
:12 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 10/9/2013 10:35 AM, John Clark
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote
If Helsinki man understands the situation, he will assign a 100%
probability to him being duplicated and ending in both places. Similarly a
physicist who believes in MWI will assign a 100% probability to him
splitting and observing all possible outcomes. This is not, however, how
people normally
On 10/9/2013 6:37 PM, LizR wrote:
If Helsinki man understands the situation, he will assign a 100% probability to him
being duplicated and ending in both places. Similarly a physicist who believes in MWI
will assign a 100% probability to him splitting and observing all possible outcomes.
This
that,
or I am not a 'comp practitioner' would not say 'yes doctor' and my attitudes
reflect 'folk psychology'.
All the best
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:37:12 +1300
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
If Helsinki man
,
there maybe issues whenever irrational numbers appear in denominators. 1/PI vs.
1-1/PI as you have said before.
All the best.
From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:21:01 +
Hi Liz
I still think this is quibbling. I at least believe I know what Bruno means
when he asks H-man to assign a probability to his chances of appearing in
Moscow. Perhaps Bruno is being sloppy in talking about probabilities,
because the whole situation is deterministic, but it does at least give a
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: everything-list
...)*
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: everything-list@googlegroups.com
I still think this is quibbling. I at least
On 07 Oct 2013, at 18:23, John Clark wrote:
Pointless unless you think it is a virtue to quite literally know
what you are talking about. Bruno keeps throwing around words like
I and you and he and it is very clear that Bruno doesn't know
what those words mean in a world with
On 07 Oct 2013, at 19:38, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Rhetorical tricks my ass! These are details of profound
importance simply glossed over with the slapdash use of personal
pronouns. And that's pretty damn sloppy for a
Hi John,
Bruno, I tried to control my mouse for a long time
The M guy is NOT the Y guy, when he remembers having been the Y guy.
Who is the Y guy? I guess you mean the guy in Helsinki.
Yes, you said it many times, but NOW again! Has this list no
consequential resolution?
Some
to the doctor because what
the doctor is going to do to you happens all the time anyway.
I think.
Telmo.
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 14:03:53 +0200
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
You are spitting non-sense... that's not what is asked. He will do *both*
from a 3rd POV but each Bruno can only live *ONE* stream of
consciousness which is *either* M or W, it's not both. So before
duplication,
On 08 Oct 2013, at 18:05, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
You are spitting non-sense... that's not what is asked. He will do
*both* from a 3rd POV but each Bruno can only live *ONE* stream
of consciousness which is
On 10/8/2013 9:05 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
You are spitting non-sense... that's not what is asked. He will do *both*
from a
3rd POV but each Bruno can only live *ONE* stream of
On 9 October 2013 06:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/8/2013 9:05 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
You are spitting non-sense... that's not what is asked. He will do
*both* from a 3rd POV but each Bruno can
On 10/8/2013 1:50 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 October 2013 06:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 10/8/2013 9:05 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
You
On 10/8/2013 1:50 PM, LizR wrote:
That is the $64000 question!
Incidentally I haven't heard anyone use that expression in thirty years. But I'm old
enough to remember when Johnny Carson was the quiz master on the radio program The $64
Question.
How old are you Liz?
Brent
--
You received
On 9 October 2013 10:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/8/2013 1:50 PM, LizR wrote:
That is the $64000 question!
Incidentally I haven't heard anyone use that expression in thirty years.
But I'm old enough to remember when Johnny Carson was the quiz master on
the radio program
On 06 Oct 2013, at 19:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/6/2013 12:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Oct 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
you have agreed that all bruno marchal are the original one (a
case where Leibniz
On 06 Oct 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The M-guy is the H-guy (the M-guy remembers having been the H-guy)
The H-guy turns into the M-guy, but they are not identical just as
you are not identical with the Bruno
will be in Moscow
(resp. Washington).”
All the best
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 17:45:48 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 10/6/2013 1:48 PM, LizR wrote:
On 7 October 2013 06:48, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote
On 06 Oct 2013, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
On 7 October 2013 06:48, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The M-guy is the H-guy (the M-guy remembers having been the H-guy)
The H-guy turns into the M-guy, but they are
...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:34:19 +0200
On 06 Oct 2013, at 22:48, LizR wrote:On 7 October 2013 06:48, John Clark
johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc
...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:34:19 +0200
On 06 Oct 2013, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
On 7 October 2013 06:48, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc
...@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
to do to you happens all the time anyway.
I think.
Telmo.
From: allco...@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
with some talk given by
people having introspective experiences.
Best regards,
Bruno
regards
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:34:19 +0200
On 06 Oct 2013, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
On 7 October
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The H-guy turns into the M-guy, but they are not identical just as you
are not identical with the Bruno Marchal of yesterday.
This is true, but it's also something Bruno has said many times.
Then Bruno is not always wrong.
If
2013/10/7 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The H-guy turns into the M-guy, but they are not identical just as
you are not identical with the Bruno Marchal of yesterday.
This is true, but it's also something Bruno has said many
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Rhetorical tricks my ass! These are details of profound importance
simply glossed over with the slapdash use of personal pronouns. And that's
pretty damn sloppy for a mathematician.
That's again an unconvincing
: 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, and thus abandoning comp
Bruno, I tried to control my mouse for a long time
The M guy is NOT the Y guy, when he remembers having been the Y guy.
Yes, you said it many times, but NOW again! Has this list no consequential
resolution?
Some people seem to have inexhaustible patience!
It was in the past and in the
On 10/7/2013 1:32 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno, I tried to control my mouse for a long time
The M guy is NOT the Y guy, when he remembers having been the Y guy.
Yes, you said it many times, but NOW again! Has this list no consequential
resolution?
Some people seem to have inexhaustible
M
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/7/2013 1:32 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno, I tried to control my mouse for a long time
The M guy is NOT the Y guy, when he remembers having been the Y guy.
Yes, you said it many times, but NOW again! Has this
Why is there such a huge argument about this duplication chamber business?
It seems to be not getting anywhere. Could you perhaps go back to the
original statement of step 3 and use that to point out what is wrong?
From memory step 3 was - Helsinki man is teleported to both Washington and
Moscow.
On 05 Oct 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
you have agreed that all bruno marchal are the original one (a
case where Leibniz identity rule fails,
If you're talking about Leibniz Identity of indiscernibles it most
On 06 Oct 2013, at 01:29, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 10:34:11AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Oct 2013, at 10:05, Russell Standish wrote:
I get that Bp is the statement that I can prove p, and that Bp p
is
the statement that I know p (assuming Theatetus, of
On 10/6/2013 12:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Oct 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
you have agreed that all bruno marchal are the original one (a case
where
Leibniz identity rule
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The M-guy is the H-guy (the M-guy remembers having been the H-guy)
The H-guy turns into the M-guy, but they are not identical just as you are
not identical with the Bruno Marchal of yesterday.
The W-guy is the H-guy
On 7 October 2013 06:48, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The M-guy is the H-guy (the M-guy remembers having been the H-guy)
The H-guy turns into the M-guy, but they are not identical just as you
are not
On 10/6/2013 1:48 PM, LizR wrote:
On 7 October 2013 06:48, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The M-guy is the H-guy (the M-guy remembers having
changes for the experiencer, it is reasonable to ascribe a
probability of ½ to the event “I will be in Moscow (resp. Washington).”
All the best
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 17:45:48 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name
On 04 Oct 2013, at 20:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/4/2013 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Physical time, on the contrary is most plausibly a quantum notion,
and should normally emerge (assuming comp) from the interference of
all computations + the stable first person (plural) points of view.
On 05 Oct 2013, at 01:16, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:51:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Read AUDA, where you can find the mathematical definition for each
pronouns, based on Kleene's recursion theorem (using the Dx = xx
trick, which I promised to do in term of
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Oct 2013, at 01:16, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:51:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Read AUDA, where you can find the mathematical definition for each
pronouns, based on Kleene's recursion theorem
On 05 Oct 2013, at 10:05, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Oct 2013, at 01:16, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:51:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Read AUDA, where you can find the mathematical definition for
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the coin throw was random so you ended up in Moscow rather than
Washington for no reason at all, but that's OK because there is no law of
logic that demands every event have a cause.
The point is that in this case the
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 5:05 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the coin throw was random so you ended up in Moscow rather than
Washington for no reason at all, but that's OK because there is no law of
logic that
On 05 Oct 2013, at 17:05, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
the coin throw was random so you ended up in Moscow rather than
Washington for no reason at all, but that's OK because there is no
law of logic that demands every event
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Personal pronouns with no referent
You never made any assertion explicit. Quote a passage of me with a
personal pronoun without referent.
The following is far far from complete, this just gives a taste of the
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
you have agreed that all bruno marchal are the original one (a case
where Leibniz identity rule fails,
If you're talking about Leibniz Identity of indiscernibles it most
certainly has NOT failed. If the original and the
On 10/5/2013 1:05 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Oct 2013, at 01:16, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:51:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Read AUDA, where you can find the mathematical definition for each
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 10:34:11AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Oct 2013, at 10:05, Russell Standish wrote:
I get that Bp is the statement that I can prove p, and that Bp p is
the statement that I know p (assuming Theatetus, of course), but in
both cases, I would say the pronoun I
On 02 Oct 2013, at 16:03, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 01 Oct 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/1/2013 7:13 AM, David Nyman wrote:
However, on reflection, this is not what one should deduce from the
logic as set out.
On 02 Oct 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
philosophically my low-tech experiment works just as well and is
just as uninformative as your hi-tech version.
Not at all. In your low tech (using a coin), you get an
indeterminacy
On 03 Oct 2013, at 01:38, chris peck wrote:
Hi Bruno
[JC] Because step 3 sucks.
[Bruno] Why? You have not yet make a convincing point on this.
His point is convincing me.
Could you explain it?
Bruno
regards.
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 23:18:07 +0200
Subject: Re: What gives
On 03 Oct 2013, at 02:19, LizR wrote:
On 3 October 2013 13:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Interestingly it appears that most coin tosses may be quantum
random, arXiv:1212.0953v1 [gr-qc]
(snip)
I say most because I know that magicians train themselves to be
able to flip a coin
On 03 Oct 2013, at 17:51, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The origin of the indeterminacies is the random use of personal
pronouns with no clear referents by Bruno Marchal such that all
questions like what is the probability I will do this or
On 03 Oct 2013, at 23:18, LizR wrote:
On 4 October 2013 05:59, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
What question about personal identity is indeterminate? There is
a 100% chance that the Helsinki man will turn into the Moscow man
On 03 Oct 2013, at 19:28, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:59 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
What question about personal identity is indeterminate? There is
a 100% chance that the Helsinki man
on the conclusion (about the success of the prediction)
contained in all diaries.
Bruno
--- Original Message ---
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
Sent: 4 October 2013 7:20 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com, Charles Goodwin charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
From the point of view of Moscow man, say, it appears (retrospectively,
at least) that he had a 50-50 chance of going to either place.
Retrospective probability? In Many worlds and in these duplicating chamber
thought experiments
On 10/4/2013 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Physical time, on the contrary is most plausibly a quantum notion, and should normally
emerge (assuming comp) from the interference of all computations + the stable first
person (plural) points of view.
I don't think physical time is even a single
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:51:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Read AUDA, where you can find the mathematical definition for each
pronouns, based on Kleene's recursion theorem (using the Dx = xx
trick, which I promised to do in term of numbers, phi_i, W_i, etc.
but 99,999% will find the use
On 3 Oct 2013, at 11:12 am, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
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
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The origin of the indeterminacies is the random use of personal pronouns
with no clear referents by Bruno Marchal such that all questions like what
is the probability I will do this or that? become meaningless.
?
Which word
1 - 100 of 451 matches
Mail list logo
