Re: For John Clark

On 02 Mar 2014, at 01:56, LizR wrote: I like the frog and bird metaphors, though! At least I prefer the idea of the bird looking down on the mathematical landscape than worrying about "the eye of god". I prefer the inner god to be a bird than a frog, but may be that's personal : The "

Re: For John Clark

I like the frog and bird metaphors, though! At least I prefer the idea of the bird looking down on the mathematical landscape than worrying about "the eye of god". In the beginning was the Bird, to quote "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag". -- You received this message because you are s

Re: For John Clark

On 26 Oct 2013, at 19:09, Jason Resch wrote: John, I came across this today, which you might find of interest: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf In particular section 3 goes to great pains to describe the importance of the first person / third person distinction. From the pape

Re: For John Clark

On 04 Nov 2013, at 18:53, Jason Resch wrote: It looks like Zeh had more to say in 1999, this theory seems much closer to many dreams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation #Continuous_infinity_of_minds and http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908084 Continuous infinity

Re: For John Clark

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 04 Nov 2013, at 15:57, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:51, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal < > marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote

Re: For John Clark

On 04 Nov 2013, at 15:57, Jason Resch wrote: On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:51, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno

Re: For John Clark

On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:51, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, J

Re: For John Clark

On 03 Nov 2013, at 22:43, meekerdb wrote: On 11/3/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2013, at 21:47, meekerdb wrote: On 11/2/2013 10:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> You have been duplicated so there are TWO FIRST PERSON POV a

Re: For John Clark

On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:51, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 A

Re: For John Clark

On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:46, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So "you" sees both Moscow AND Washington. No, anyone of the two see only one city. So what is the one and only one city that the 2 you see. W for tham in W. And M for the guy in M.

Re: For John Clark

On 03 Nov 2013, at 16:22, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The prediction, asked in Helsinki, concerned the 1-views, And John Clark asks "the prediction concerns the first person view of who?" and Bruno answers "the first person view of you" No.

Re: For John Clark

On 11/3/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2013, at 21:47, meekerdb wrote: On 11/2/2013 10:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: >> You have been duplicated so there are TWO FIRST PERSON POV and they bo

Re: For John Clark

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > So "you" sees both Moscow AND Washington. > > > No, anyone of the two see only one city. > So what is the one and only one city that the 2 you see. > > "you" are both of them, > Yes, but both see only one city. > Yes, and if b

Re: For John Clark

Hi John, On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:13 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> > John, you are the guy who explained Bell's inequality in a very >> > compelling way. You're obviously smart >> > > I’m blushing. > > >> >> > so why are you only engaging in personal atta

Re: For John Clark

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >

Re: For John Clark

John, You seemed convinced that observers within duplicated but divergent simulations cannot distinguish their observations from a single course that evolves randomly. Why not proceed to the next step? Jason On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 9:22 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM,

Re: For John Clark

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The prediction, asked in Helsinki, concerned the 1-views, > > And John Clark asks "the prediction concerns the first person view of who?" and Bruno answers "the first person view of you" and John Clark asks "who is you?" and Bruno answers "

Re: For John Clark

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote: > John, you are the guy who explained Bell's inequality in a very > compelling way. You're obviously smart > > I’m blushing. > > so why are you only engaging in personal attacks? > If I think somebody's ideas are gibberish I'm going to say their gibber

Re: For John Clark

On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Oct 2013, at 19:30, Jason Resch wrote: Normally this is explained in

Re: For John Clark

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 19 Oct 2013, at 19:30, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> Normally this is explained in Albert's book, which I think y

Re: For John Clark

On 02 Nov 2013, at 21:47, meekerdb wrote: On 11/2/2013 10:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> You have been duplicated so there are TWO FIRST PERSON POV and they both remember writing the diary, so which one is Bruno Marchal talking about?

Re: For John Clark

On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Oct 2013, at 19:30, Jason Resch wrote: Normally this is explained in Albert's book, which I think you have. Are you referring to "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" (1992)? I

Re: For John Clark

On 02 Nov 2013, at 18:53, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> You have been duplicated so there are TWO FIRST PERSON POV and they both remember writing the diary, so which one is Bruno Marchal talking about? > Anyone of the two So "you" sees bo

Re: For John Clark

On 11/2/2013 10:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: >> You have been duplicated so there are TWO FIRST PERSON POV and they both remember writing the diary, so which one is Bruno Marchal talking about?

Re: For John Clark

On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 19 Oct 2013, at 19:30, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > >> Normally this is explained in Albert's book, which I think you have. >> > > Are you referring to "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" (1992)? I do not > have this book but will add it

Re: For John Clark

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> You have been duplicated so there are TWO FIRST PERSON POV and they both >> remember writing the diary, so which one is Bruno Marchal talking about? >> > > > Anyone of the two > So "you" sees both Moscow AND Washington. > each will have

Re: For John Clark

On 02 Nov 2013, at 11:13, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Nov 2013, at 15:17, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: When some bully oversteps the line of decency, then by default any discussion ceases to be rational. Then we are left with the choice

Re: For John Clark

Hi, I comment on Quentin, and then on John, to help anyone interested. On 01 Nov 2013, at 22:22, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/11/1 John Clark On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote >> The diary is useless because the diary was written by "you" and contains predictions

Re: For John Clark

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 5:13 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > Since more than one or two years, John Clark oscillates between "obvious >> > non sense" to "obvious, period". We might hope than in his "obvious, >> > period" >> > phase, he might go

Re: For John Clark

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Since more than one or two years, John Clark oscillates between "obvious > non sense" to "obvious, period". We might hope than in his "obvious, > period" phase, he might go to the next step, > John Clark doesn't do that because John Clark kn

Re: For John Clark

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 01 Nov 2013, at 15:17, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > When some bully oversteps the line of decency, then by default any > discussion ceases to be rational. Then we are left with the choice to let it > be or denounce the crossing of o

Re: For John Clark

On 2 November 2013 15:57, Chris de Morsella wrote: > > By the way, personally, I thank you for – at substantial personal cost -- > blowing the whistle on this 1980s MIC gravy train. A world without > whistleblowers is – IMO the kind of place Torquemada would feel right at > home in. > > ** >

Re: For John Clark

2013/11/1 John Clark > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote > > >> The diary is useless because the diary was written by "you" and >>> contains predictions about the further adventures of "you", but now there >>> are 2 (or more) people with the title "you" ... >>> >> >> > ...,

Re: For John Clark

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote >> The diary is useless because the diary was written by "you" and contains >> predictions about the further adventures of "you", but now there are 2 (or >> more) people with the title "you" ... >> > > > ..., but now there are 2 (or more) people

Re: For John Clark

I am definitely slow compared to most of the members of this list. Although I have a 1966 PhD in physics from Harvard, my major was in electromagnetic theory, and after graduation, studied radar scattering and laser propagation, which are 19th century subjects even though the technology is 20th cen

Re: For John Clark

Liz, On 01 Nov 2013, at 17:40, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:04 AM, LizR wrote: > So, has step 3 gone from "that's absurd" to "everyone knows that" ?! Yes that is the situation right now, but with backpedaling and additional caveats and restrictions made by Bruno and other me

Re: For John Clark

On 01 Nov 2013, at 15:17, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: When some bully oversteps the line of decency, then by default any discussion ceases to be rational. Then we are left with the choice to let it be or denounce the crossing of our personalized line. With regards to this infinite back

Re: For John Clark

2013/11/1 John Clark > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:04 AM, LizR wrote: > > > So, has step 3 gone from "that's absurd" to "everyone knows that" ?! >> > > Yes that is the situation right now, but with backpedaling and additional > caveats and restrictions made by Bruno and other members of this list t

Re: For John Clark

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:40 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:04 AM, LizR wrote: > > > So, has step 3 gone from "that's absurd" to "everyone knows that" ?! >> > > Yes that is the situation right now, but with backpedaling and additional > caveats and restrictions made by Bruno an

Re: For John Clark

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:04 AM, LizR wrote: > So, has step 3 gone from "that's absurd" to "everyone knows that" ?! > Yes that is the situation right now, but with backpedaling and additional caveats and restrictions made by Bruno and other members of this list that I expect to hear about very so

Re: For John Clark

On 01 Nov 2013, at 08:06, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:54 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: this distracts from the question asked, which concerns the first person pov, from the first person pov. That is the first person e

Re: For John Clark

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Telmo, Do you think Quentin should be banned for bullying? I don't think that anyone should be banned. We are all grown ups and it's not that hard to set up an email filter. I do think that it's depressing when people start referring to oth

Re: For John Clark

When some bully oversteps the line of decency, then by default any discussion ceases to be rational. Then we are left with the choice to let it be or denounce the crossing of our personalized line. With regards to this infinite back and forth, all the insults and cul-de-sac arguments, with zero pr

Re: For John Clark

2013/11/1 Richard Ruquist > Telmo, Do you think Quentin should be banned for bullying? > I did not bully you, I asked several times the same question, firstly gently, and you mocked me, secondly, you mocked the proves/suggest, then you said fuck you (I said for fuck sake before, not fuck you), t

Re: For John Clark

Telmo, Do you think Quentin should be banned for bullying? On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > > > > > > > > 2013/11/1 Telmo Menezes > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Richard Ruquist > >> wrote: > >> > OK.

Re: For John Clark

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2013/11/1 Telmo Menezes >> >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Richard Ruquist >> wrote: >> > OK. I should have said "suggests intuitively: or "intuitively suggests" >> > rather than merely "suggests that the universe is finite". How

Re: For John Clark

2013/11/1 Telmo Menezes > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Richard Ruquist > wrote: > > OK. I should have said "suggests intuitively: or "intuitively suggests" > > rather than merely "suggests that the universe is finite". However, your > > insult of categorizing me with roger and stephen lin is

Re: For John Clark

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > OK. I should have said "suggests intuitively: or "intuitively suggests" > rather than merely "suggests that the universe is finite". However, your > insult of categorizing me with roger and stephen lin is unmerited. And now you propagate t

Re: For John Clark

2013/11/1 Richard Ruquist > OK. I should have said "suggests intuitively: or "intuitively suggests" > rather than merely "suggests that the universe is finite". However, your > insult of categorizing me with roger and stephen lin is unmerited. > Yes. > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Quent

Re: For John Clark

OK. I should have said "suggests intuitively: or "intuitively suggests" rather than merely "suggests that the universe is finite". However, your insult of categorizing me with roger and stephen lin is unmerited. On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > OK... but then you shouldn

Re: For John Clark

OK... but then you shouldn't have use that as an argument... I respect intuition, I don't respect using that as an argument. Quentin 2013/11/1 Richard Ruquist > Intuition > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >> Le 1 nov. 2013 00:39, "Richard Ruquist" a écrit : >>

Re: For John Clark

Intuition On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Le 1 nov. 2013 00:39, "Richard Ruquist" a écrit : > > > > John, you are not the first that Quentin has categorized as a roger or > stephen lin. Richard > > What does suggest that the universe is finite in the fact that we've

Re: For John Clark

Le 1 nov. 2013 00:39, "Richard Ruquist" a écrit : > > John, you are not the first that Quentin has categorized as a roger or stephen lin. Richard What does suggest that the universe is finite in the fact that we've found a fully formed galaxy 700 millions years after the big bang? Quentin > > On

Re: For John Clark

On 01 Nov 2013, at 07:04, LizR wrote: So, has step 3 gone from "that's absurd" to "everyone knows that" ?! Since more than one or two years, John Clark oscillates between "obvious non sense" to "obvious, period". We might hope than in his "obvious, period" phase, he might go to the next

Re: For John Clark

On 01 Nov 2013, at 02:51, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > A) The test described where the simulation process forks 8 times and 256 copies are created and they each see a different pattern of the ball changing color Duplicating a brain is not eno

Re: For John Clark

On 31 Oct 2013, at 20:49, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> As I said before there is a profound difference between the two. After Everett's thought experiment is over only ONE person is seen by a third party so it's easy to determine who "you"

Re: For John Clark

On 31 Oct 2013, at 18:54, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > this distracts from the question asked, which concerns the first person pov, from the first person pov. That is the first person experience. [...] Comp accepts that both copies are equi

Re: For John Clark

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:54 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > this distracts from the question asked, which concerns the first person >> > pov, from the first person pov. That is the first person experience. [...] >> > Comp accepts that both c

Re: For John Clark

So, has step 3 gone from "that's absurd" to "everyone knows that" ?! On 1 November 2013 17:31, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:51 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> > A) The test described where the simulation process forks

Re: For John Clark

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:51 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > A) The test described where the simulation process forks 8 times and 256 >> copies are created and they each see a different pattern of the ball >> changing color >> > > Duplicating a b

Re: For John Clark

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > if 've waited too much to put you in the boitakon, meet roger and > stephen li > I'm guessing that's an insult of some sort but my Quentinspeak is a little rusty so I'm not sure. John K Clark -- You received this message because

Re: For John Clark

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > A) The test described where the simulation process forks 8 times and 256 > copies are created and they each see a different pattern of the ball > changing color > Duplicating a brain is not enough, the intelligence has NOT forked until there

Re: For John Clark

John, you are not the first that Quentin has categorized as a roger or stephen lin. Richard On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2013/10/31 John Clark > >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> As I said before there is a profound differenc

Re: For John Clark

2013/10/31 John Clark > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > >> As I said before there is a profound difference between the two. After >>> Everett's thought experiment is over only ONE person is seen by a third >>> party so it's easy to determine who "you" is and easy to de

Re: For John Clark

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> As I said before there is a profound difference between the two. After >> Everett's thought experiment is over only ONE person is seen by a third >> party so it's easy to determine who "you" is and easy to determine if >> predictions abou

Re: For John Clark

2013/10/31 John Clark > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > this distracts from the question asked, which concerns the first person >> pov, from the first person pov. That is the first person experience. [...] >> Comp accepts that both copies are equivalent (with respec

Re: For John Clark

John, I reformulated the UDA in a way that does not use any pronouns at all, and it doesn't matter if you consider the question from one view or from all the views, the conclusion is the same. Perhaps you wouldn't mind commenting on whether or not you agree with my conclusion. I will re-post it

Re: For John Clark

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > this distracts from the question asked, which concerns the first person > pov, from the first person pov. That is the first person experience. [...] > Comp accepts that both copies are equivalent (with respect to identity) > continuations of

Re: For John Clark

On 10/31/2013 10:18 AM, John Clark wrote: > what is asked is the probability to see moscow, likewise when you measure the spin of the electron, the question is the probability you measure spin up As I said before there is a profound difference between the two. After Everett's thought

Re: For John Clark

2013/10/31 John Clark > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > >> I think this entire matter could be clarified if you could reformulate >>> the following question in such a way that a simple yes or no answer can be >>> given: >>> >> >>> >> "Do you die if two exact copies o

Re: For John Clark

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> I think this entire matter could be clarified if you could reformulate >> the following question in such a way that a simple yes or no answer can be >> given: >> > >> > "Do you die if two exact copies of Quentin Anciaux in Helsinki are

Re: For John Clark

On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:21, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/10/30 John Clark On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> Bruno asked me "Do you think that you die in a self-duplication experience?" and I said that depends on what the meaning of "you" is. Bruno responded wi

Re: For John Clark

2013/10/30 John Clark > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > >> Bruno asked me "Do you think that you die in a self-duplication >>> experience?" and I said that depends on what the meaning of "you" is. Bruno >>> responded with "We have already agree that "you" concerns the

Re: For John Clark

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> Bruno asked me "Do you think that you die in a self-duplication >> experience?" and I said that depends on what the meaning of "you" is. Bruno >> responded with "We have already agree that "you" concerns the guy(s) who >> will remember ha

Re: For John Clark

On 30 October 2013 06:55, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > >> If John Clark was lying and Bruno has not changed his mind and "you" >>> is still "the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki" then it is >>> beyond dispute that YOU will see BO

Re: For John Clark

2013/10/29 Quentin Anciaux > > > > 2013/10/29 John Clark > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> If John Clark was lying and Bruno has not changed his mind and "you" is still "the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki" then it is beyon

Re: For John Clark

2013/10/29 John Clark > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > >> If John Clark was lying and Bruno has not changed his mind and "you" >>> is still "the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki" then it is >>> beyond dispute that YOU will see BOTH Moscow AND He

Re: For John Clark

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> If John Clark was lying and Bruno has not changed his mind and "you" is >> still "the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki" then it is >> beyond dispute that YOU will see BOTH Moscow AND Helsinki. >> > > > It is correct from

RE: For John Clark

stinguish these two cases? Again, where there is ignorance there can be doubt. But it isn't the doubt you want which is doubt in state of maximal knowledge. >> Okay, that is fair. I'm beginning to think Bruno defines 'self' in terms of self reference within certain mod

Re: For John Clark

2013/10/28 John Clark > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > >> >>> >>> I give the two definition of the pronouns used in the reasoning, and often confused by the use of an identical term in natural language, but clearly distinguishes in UDA step 2, and the next

Re: For John Clark

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >>> I give the two definition of the pronouns used in the reasoning, and >>> often confused by the use of an identical term in natural language, but >>> clearly distinguishes in UDA step 2, and the next one. The 1-you, basically >>> "y

Re: For John Clark

2013/10/28 John Clark > > > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I give the two definition of the pronouns used in the reasoning, and >> often confused by the use of an identical term in natural language, but >> clearly distinguishes in UDA step 2, and the next one. The 1-

Re: For John Clark

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I give the two definition of the pronouns used in the reasoning, and > often confused by the use of an identical term in natural language, but > clearly distinguishes in UDA step 2, and the next one. The 1-you, basically > "your" definition,

Re: For John Clark

On 27 Oct 2013, at 22:24, meekerdb wrote: On 10/27/2013 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Here's a blog post that might suggest a point of contact: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2013/10/distributed-computing-with-alien.html Don't hesitate to elaborate, but this assumes QM, and does not bear on the

Re: For John Clark

John, Sorry, I missed your reply. Some comment's in-line below: On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 9:54 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> > I came across this today, which you might find of interest: >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf In

Re: For John Clark

On 10/27/2013 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Here's a blog post that might suggest a point of contact: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2013/10/distributed-computing-with-alien.html Don't hesitate to elaborate, but this assumes QM, and does not bear on the mind-body or 1p/3p relation. No it doesn't

Re: For John Clark

John, Do you have any comment on the article I posted? Jason On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 10:52 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > You're just lying... You are the one treating things inconsistently, >> it's a shame your pride so high you can't e

Re: For John Clark

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 7:47 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < > multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Unlike you, I fortunately do not have the time to dig up your ad >> hominems. >> > > Well, I sure didn't have to dig very far to find your ad ho

Re: For John Clark

On 27 Oct 2013, at 17:27, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/10/27 John Clark On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > I came across this today, which you might find of interest: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf In particular section 3 goes to great pains to descri

Re: For John Clark

On 27 Oct 2013, at 16:47, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> probability implies prediction and prediction has nothing to do with a sense of self, and that is what Bruno's "proof" is all about. > Absolutely not. Absolutely not what? "that

Re: For John Clark

On 27 Oct 2013, at 15:54, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > I came across this today, which you might find of interest: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf In particular section 3 goes to great pains to describe the importance of the firs

Re: For John Clark

2013/10/27 John Clark > > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> > I came across this today, which you might find of interest: >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf In particular section 3 goes >> to great pains to describe the importance of the first person / thir

Re: For John Clark

The following is a flow diagram of the conversation we've been having on this thread: 1) Point John Clarck mistakes. 2) John Clark ignores it. Repeat the same mistake ad nauseam. 3) goto 1 Quentin 2013/10/27 John Clark > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > You're

Re: For John Clark

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > You're just lying... You are the one treating things inconsistently, it's > a shame your pride so high you can't even recognize it. Believe what you > want to believe. > The following is a flow diagram of the conversation we've been havin

Re: For John Clark

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> probability implies prediction and prediction has nothing to do with a >> sense of self, and that is what Bruno's "proof" is all about. >> > > > Absolutely not. > Absolutely not what? Absolutely not that probability implies prediction or

Re: For John Clark

You're just lying... You are the one treating things inconsistently, it's a shame your pride so high you can't even recognize it. Believe what you want to believe. Quentin 2013/10/27 John Clark > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > So, you still find nothing to say

Re: For John Clark

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > So, you still find nothing to say about many-worlds interpretation of QM > where you are duplicated billions of time a picosecond, but you are able to > babble for years about a simple duplication experiment ? > The following is a flow di

Re: For John Clark

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > I came across this today, which you might find of interest: > http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf In particular section 3 goes > to great pains to describe the importance of the first person / third > person distinction. > > Of cour

Re: For John Clark

On 27 Oct 2013, at 00:05, meekerdb wrote: On 10/26/2013 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Oct 2013, at 23:33, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: ... It is: 3) Bruno has yet to develop the mathematical tools to do practical computations. Not at all. That would be the case if the goal was doing p

Re: For John Clark

On 26 Oct 2013, at 23:53, meekerdb wrote: On 10/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You betray your feeling here. Some people, like you apparently, indeed find the FPI and the reversal as a "work of genius". They think: "if you were right you should have the Nobel Prize, but you don't,

  1   2   3   >