Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>​ > you have no knowledge of computer science and its history. Computation > and computability have been discovered by mathematicians and they don't use > any physical assumptions. > ​That is true, ​ physical assumptions

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ >>> ​>> ​ >>> Sigma_1 complete provability is Turing universal, >> >> > ​>> ​ >> ​But the proof or that can't compute one damn thing!​ >> ​ ​ >> No proof can.​ > > ​> ​ > That is false. Sigma_1 provability can compute

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 06 Oct 2015, at 16:23, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​John Clark agrees implicitly with the fact that a computation is not a physical notion, ​No, John Clark does not agree with that.​ Then your earlier explanation of what is

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 07 Oct 2015, at 03:58, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Sigma_1 complete provability is Turing universal, ​But the proof or that can't compute one damn thing!​ ​No proof can.​ That is false. Sigma_1 provability can

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Kim Jones wrote: > ​> ​ > I don’t honestly see the point of this any more. ​And yet you still post, therefore I can only conclude that ​ you enjoy writing posts that have no point.​ ​> ​ > I recall you saying several eons ago that

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

2015-10-06 16:23 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > ​> ​ >> John Clark agrees implicitly with the fact that a computation is not a >> physical notion, > > > ​No, John Clark does not agree with that.​ > > > >> ​> ​ >>

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Because John Clark can find no evidence that ​ >> computation *NOT* done in physics exists, ​and INTEL can't find any >> evidence for it either. The only reason John Clark talks about " >> physical

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

> On 6 Oct 2015, at 8:34 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Note that here John Clark agrees implicitly with the fact that a computation > is not a physical notion, because he defines physical computation by a > computation done in physics. So he lost the point. Unfortunately we

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 06 Oct 2015, at 04:29, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ I'm not dogmatic on the subject but I have​ ​ grave​ ​doubts​ ​about​ ​the existence of computation in arithmetic; certainly​ ​nobody has ever seen​ ​even a hint of​ ​such a

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > Sigma_1 complete provability is Turing universal, > ​But the proof or that can't compute one damn thing!​ ​No proof can.​ > ​> ​ > the problem is that in "computation done physically", what do you mean by >

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 05 Oct 2015, at 00:52, Kim Jones wrote: On 1 Oct 2015, at 3:25 AM, John Clark wrote: When I say "physical computation" ​ and you demand a definition of that and when I respond with "a computation done with physics" and you demand a definition of that too then

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > John Clark agrees implicitly with the fact that a computation is not a > physical notion, ​No, John Clark does not agree with that.​ > ​> ​ > because he defines physical computation by a computation done in physics.

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> I'm not dogmatic on the subject but I have >> ​ ​ >> grave >> ​ ​ >> doubts >> ​ ​ >> about >> ​ ​ >> the existence of computation in arithmetic; certainly >> ​ ​ >> nobody has ever seen >> ​ ​ >> even a hint of >> ​ ​ >>

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 03 Oct 2015, at 04:25, John Clark wrote: O​n Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wr rote > you seem to doubt that the existence of computation in arithmetic. Yes, I'm not dogmatic on the subject but I have​ ​grave​ ​ doubts​ ​about​ ​the existence of

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

> On 1 Oct 2015, at 3:25 AM, John Clark wrote: > > When I say "physical computation" ​ and you demand a definition of that and > when I respond with "a computation done with physics" and you demand a > definition of that too then I believe it is perfectly acceptable for

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 01 Oct 2015, at 22:09, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​When I say "physical computation" and you demand a definition of that and when I respond with "a computation done with physics" and you demand a definition of

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

O​ n Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wr rote > you seem to doubt that the existence of computation in arithmetic. Yes, I'm not dogmatic on the subject but I have ​ ​ grave ​ ​ doubts ​ ​ about ​ ​ the existence of computation in arithmetic; certainly ​ ​ nobody

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 30 Sep 2015, at 19:25, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​And that my friends is exactly why examples are so superior to definitions, it avoids the absurd "define that word" endless loop that people always use when they're losing a

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> And that my friends is exactly why examples are so superior to >> definitions, it avoids the absurd "define that word" endless loop that >> people always use when they're losing a debate. > > > ​> ​ > So by asking example

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 29 Sep 2015, at 23:51, John Clark wrote: snip And that my friends is exactly why examples are so superior to definitions, it avoids the absurd "define that word" endless loop that people always use when they're losing a debate. So by asking example when I give a definition, and asking

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 28 Sep 2015, at 18:21, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>​>>​ ​If you prove the existence of something in something else, you have that something, ​​>> ​Euclid proved 2500 years ago that there are infinitely many primes, so if what you

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> >> ​>> ​ >> ​ >> Now you equate existence with constructive existence, >> > > ​>> ​ > ​What the hell? You're the one that is equating those two things not me! > I don't want you to answer the question "does the 423rd prime

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> >> ​>>​ >> ​ >> If you prove the existence of something in something else, you have that >> something, >> > > ​ > ​>> ​ > Euclid proved 2500 years ago that there are infinitely many primes, so if > what you say above is true you

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 25 Sep 2015, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​I don't want proof of computations, I want computations!​ ​> ​If you prove the existence of something in something else, you have that something, ​Euclid

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 24 Sep 2015, at 01:26, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​the existence of particular computations and emulations of computations by other computations can be proved already in Robinson Arithmetic. ​I don't want proof of computations,

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > the existence of particular computations and emulations of computations by > other computations can be proved already in Robinson Arithmetic. > ​I don't want proof of computations, I want computations!​ ​>​ > There is a

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 21 Sep 2015, at 02:49, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Yes, arithmetic can simulates a Turing machine, ​Arithmetic can't simulate anything unless it has access to something physical like a biological brain or a electronic

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > Yes, arithmetic can simulates a Turing machine, > ​Arithmetic can't simulate anything unless it has access to something physical like a biological brain or a electronic microprocessor. ​ > ​> ​ > But a primary physical

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 20 Sep 2015, at 03:17, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 , Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​Theorems don't make calculations, physical microprocessor chips do.​ ​> ​Physical computer are implementation, in the math sense, of turing universality by physical devices.

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 , Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Theorems don't make calculations, physical microprocessor chips do.​ > > > ​> ​ > Physical computer are implementation, in the math sense, of turing > universality by physical devices. > ​What makes you so certain that

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 10 Sep 2015, at 20:55, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​I will answer your next post if it contains something new. ​Then I guess it contained something new.​ ​>​>>​ ​that can be emulated in arithmetic as all computations can be emulated

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > I will answer your next post if it contains something new. ​Then I guess it contained something new.​ > ​> >> ​>>​ >> ​ >> that can be emulated in arithmetic as all computations can be emulated >> > > ​ > ​>> ​ > Bullshit.​ >

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 07 Sep 2015, at 19:11, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​that can be emulated in arithmetic as all computations can be emulated ​Bullshit.​ No, it is a theorem in computer science. Keep in mind that computer (universal machine),

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > that can be emulated in arithmetic as all computations can be emulated > ​Bullshit.​ > ​> >> ​>>​ >> ​ >> The fact that computations exist in arithmetic is a trivial theorem. >> > > ​ > ​>> ​ > You keep saying that, and yet

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 04 Sep 2015, at 19:53, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​If arithmetic is more fundamental than physics as you say then we should be able to write a program that would get the computer wet, and yet we can't and your

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 03 Sep 2015, at 18:56, John Clark wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Just one remark: we cannot make a piece of matter wet in arithmetic ​I know, but why not? If arithmetic is more fundamental than physics as you say then we should be able to write a program that

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> If arithmetic is more fundamental than physics as you say then we should >> be able to write a program that would get the computer wet, and yet we >> can't and your theory can not give an adequate explanation

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

can't avoid modal logic. But this does not refute the FPI, if that is what you were trying to do. Bruno From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:40:16 +0200 On 31 Aug 2015, at 23:58, John Cl

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > Just one remark: we cannot make a piece of matter wet in arithmetic > ​I know, but why not? If arithmetic is more fundamental than physics as you say then we should be able to write a program that would get the computer wet, and yet we can't and

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 31 Aug 2015, at 23:58, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​Bruno Marcha​l was alluding on how you predict your subjective experience when you do an experience in physics​ ​ where "you" has been duplicated and thus making

RE: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

JC-0-'you' is not JC-1-'you', both are JC-H-'you'. In otherwords, because JC-0 and JC-1's experiences are exclusive relative to one another, they are not exclusive relative to JC-H. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again Date: Wed, 2

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​>>​ >> Bruno Marcha >> ​l >> was alluding on how you predict your subjective experience when you do an >> experience in physics >> ​ ​ >> where "you" has been duplicated and thus making that personal pronoun >>

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 30 Aug 2015, at 19:04, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​​I saw several question marks in the last post but I saw no questions. Ask me any question and I'll give you an answer or say I don't know, but I can't respond to

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 29 Aug 2015, at 18:59, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​You don't even quote the entire sentence. ​You mean the one where you said ​ ​I will no more comment​ ?​ Yes. ​ ​You don't even quote and answer any of the

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ ​I saw several question marks in the last post but I saw no questions. Ask me any question and I'll give you an answer or say I don't know, but I can't respond to gibberish.​ ​ ​ I was alluding on how you predict

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 28 Aug 2015, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​All here is pure rhetorical tricks which have already been debunked many times, by many people. ​Bullshit.​ Sure. ​ ​I will no more comment ​Coward. You don't even quote

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ You don't even quote the entire sentence. ​You mean the one where you said ​ ​ I will no more comment ​ ?​ ​ ​ You don't even quote and answer any of the question asked in any of the last post. ​I saw several

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

John, All here is pure rhetorical tricks which have already been debunked many times, by many people. I will no more comment those ad hominem spurious trolling posts. Bruno On 21 Aug 2015, at 19:26, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ All here is pure rhetorical tricks which have already been debunked many times, by many people. ​Bullshit.​ ​ ​ I will no more comment ​Coward. John K Clark​ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 20 Aug 2015, at 21:21, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:​ ​ ​​ the only way John Clark knows how to interpret ​ What does happen is 3p, and the question is about the 1p​ is that the 1p does not happen after duplication in which

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ Nobody will have two 1p from an 1p pov. ​If Ed remains somebody even after Ed is duplicated then somebody will have two 1p from a 1p pov. However John Clark is reluctant to say what will happen to you until Bruno

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 18 Aug 2015, at 23:19, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​​​ What does happen is 3p, and the question is about the 1p. ​ ​What! So whatever really does happen to ​Bruno Marchal​ after the duplication there will be no 1p? ​ ​Why would I ask

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​​ What does happen is 3p, and the question is about the 1p. ​ ​ What! So whatever really does happen to ​Bruno Marchal ​ after the duplication there will be no 1p? ​ ​ Why would I ask you to predict the 1p if there were

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 17 Aug 2015, at 18:31, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​First of all what somebody expects to happen has no bearing on this matter,only what does happen is important . ​ ​NOT AT ALL. Bruno Marchal​ expects one thing to happen, John

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 16 Aug 2015, at 22:24, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​​You again! John Clark expects that Bruno Marchal​ ​ will continue to use words in the proof that implicitly assumes the very thing it's trying to prove. ​ ​ ​Are

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ First of all what somebody expects to happen has no bearing on this matter,only what does happen is important . ​ ​ NOT AT ALL. Bruno Marchal ​ expects one thing to happen, John Clark expects another thing to happen and Ed

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 15 Aug 2015, at 23:50, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​And the question is on the pure 1-view, like in what do you expect​ [...] ​You again! John Clark expects that Bruno Marchal​ will continue to use words in the proof

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ ​You again! John Clark expects that Bruno Marchal ​ ​ will continue to use words in the proof that implicitly assumes the very thing it's trying to prove. ​ ​ ​ Are you joking or what? ​I'm not joking so I

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ And the question is on the pure 1-view, like in what do you expect ​ [...] ​You again! John Clark expects that Bruno Marchal ​ will continue to use words in the proof that implicitly assumes the very thing it's

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 13 Aug 2015, at 22:28, John Clark wrote: ​People can believe all sorts of foolish things, but if a person enters a person duplicating machine ​that person will still have a unique past but will NOT have a unique future. Yes that is odd, but odd things happen when a person is

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 14 Aug 2015, at 07:48, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​​after the door is opened there is no such thing as the 1- view.​ ​ ​I have explained why this is directly refuted by all copies. ​So is THE 1-view a view of Moscow or

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: ​​ ​ if that definition of you is used then the question What one and only one city did you end up seeing? has no answer because it is not a question at all, it is just a sequence of ASCII characters the last of which

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 14 Aug 2015, at 12:38 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 August 2015 at 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: ​​​ if that definition of you is used then the question What one and only

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 14 August 2015 at 12:45, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: On 14 Aug 2015, at 12:38 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 August 2015 at 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 14 August 2015 at 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: ​​ ​ if that definition of you is used then the question What one and only one city did you end up seeing? has no answer because it is not a question at

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ ​after the door is opened there is no such thing as *the* 1-view.​ ​ ​ I have explained why this is directly refuted by all copies. ​So is *THE* 1-view a view of Moscow or of Washington? ​ ​ a natural

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 12 Aug 2015, at 02:46, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​​ ​Oh no​, now we have the two 3-1 p view​!​ ​ ​We have this since the beginning. ​That explains your profound confusion. ​ ​ ​You can say that both copies have the 1-view of

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 11 Aug 2015, at 01:43, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​there will be only one 1-view from any of the two 3-1 p view ​Oh no​, now we have the two 3-1 p view​!​ We have this since the beginning. 3-JC is refers to the

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

So here's an excerpt from this paper: h ttp://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9609006v1.pdf, which was recently linked in response to a question I asked about MWI. This seems to echo *exactly* your concerns about identity/pronouns in the duplication experiment, and to resolve them, even though this

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ ​ Oh no​, now we have the two 3-1 p view ​!​ ​ ​ We have this since the beginning. ​That explains your profound confusion. ​ ​ ​ You can say that both copies have the 1-view of the H-guy, ​Regardless of how many bodies

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 09 Aug 2015, at 22:53, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​would be silly to ask the amoeba before the division if *you* will swim to the left or to the right after the division, ​ almost as silly as asking which of the 2 amoebas was THE one

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ there will be only one 1-view from any of the two 3-1 p view ​Oh no​, now we have the two 3-1 p view ​!​ 3-JC is refers to the bodies which in this case are in the two cities. ​OK, or in non-peepee notation the

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ would be silly to ask the amoeba before the division if **you** will swim to the left or to the right after the division, ​almost as silly as asking which of the 2 amoebas was *THE* one true original amoeba that had *THE* 1p

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 09 Aug 2015, at 01:00, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: ​ ​If you're an amoeba and you divide, there are now two amoebas who remember having been you (if amoebas had memories). ​Yes, and it would be silly to ask the amoeba before the division if

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 5:09:49 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: ​ ​ My point isn't that MWI is true. My point is you understand it and how it leads to the appearance of indeterminacy in a completely

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 07 Aug 2015, at 21:09, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: ​ ​My point isn't that MWI is true. My point is you understand it and how it leads to the appearance of indeterminacy in a completely determined system.​ ​Indeterminacy is a 1-p

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: ​ ​ If you're an amoeba and you divide, there are now two amoebas who remember having been you (if amoebas had memories). ​Yes, and it would be silly to ask the amoeba before the division if **you** will swim to the left or to the right

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 smitra smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: ​ ​ You can just define personal identity as a single observer moment, which includes any memories of the outcomes of the duplication experiments, so the string of the W's and M'should be included in the definition of you. ​OK​. ​ ​ But

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

John says. The two can be very different. -- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:59:25 -0700 From: pie...@gmail.com javascript: To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Subject: Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:06:31 PM UTC+10

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 06 Aug 2015, at 19:23, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​the nuance is not in the name or in the pronouns, but in the 1p/3p difference, or in the 1-1p/3-1p difference. ​ ​​In a world with people duplicating machines ​what

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 06 Aug 2015, at 19:38, smitra wrote: You can just define personal identity as a single observer moment, That is dangerous talk, but i see what you mean. which includes any memories of the outcomes of the duplication experiments, so the string of the W's and M'should be included in

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 07 Aug 2015, at 02:59, Pierz wrote: On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:06:31 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Aug 2015, at 02:39, Pierz wrote: Mein Gott, this argument reminds me of the fire in Siberia that started burning in the Holocene and is still going. Why do you keep taking

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: ​ ​ My point isn't that MWI is true. My point is you understand it and how it leads to the appearance of indeterminacy in a completely determined system. ​ ​ Indeterminacy is a 1-p illusion ​It's either an illusion or it is

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 06 Aug 2015, at 00:57, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​​Since ​Bruno is clear about all this Bruno should have no difficulty in complying to the request of substituting John Clark for the personal pronoun you. ​ ​We did this

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 06 Aug 2015, at 02:37, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​But there is no genuine reason to prefer one over the other. ​ ​Thta's the point, and that is why they both get one bit of information, ​No new information has been received.

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 06 Aug 2015, at 02:39, Pierz wrote: Mein Gott, this argument reminds me of the fire in Siberia that started burning in the Holocene and is still going. Why do you keep taking the troll bait Bruno? Because it is not under my back, and I want to make clear that the person who have a

RE: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

. So you have to be careful to read what John says rather than rely what Bruno says John says. The two can be very different. Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:59:25 -0700 From: pier...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again On Thursday, August 6, 2015

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 11:39:47 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: ​ ​ if the quantum state evolves deterministically ​The wave function most certainly evolves deterministically but that's not important

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:06:31 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Aug 2015, at 02:39, Pierz wrote: Mein Gott, this argument reminds me of the fire in Siberia that started burning in the Holocene and is still going. Why do you keep taking the troll bait Bruno?

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ the nuance is not in the name or in the pronouns, but in the 1p/3p difference, or in the 1-1p/3-1p difference. ​ ​ ​In a world with people duplicating machines ​what exactly is the difference between *THE*​ 1p ​

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

You can just define personal identity as a single observer moment, which includes any memories of the outcomes of the duplication experiments, so the string of the W's and M'should be included in the definition of you. You can also invent a machine that creates a consciousness that has false

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

13:47:57 -0400 Subject: Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again From: johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​​ ​For the sake of clarity and consistency when dealing with this topic John Clark humbly

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 04 Aug 2015, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​​ ​For the sake of clarity and consistency when dealing with this topic John Clark humbly requests that ​Bruno Marchal make the following simple changes in future

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: ​ ​ if the quantum state evolves deterministically ​The wave function most certainly evolves deterministically but that's not important because the wave function is not observable, I want to know if the actual physical state

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ ​Since ​Bruno is clear about all this Bruno should have no difficulty in complying to the request of substituting John Clark for the personal pronoun you. ​ ​ We did this already, but you came up with non sense

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ But there is no genuine reason to prefer one over the other. ​ ​ Thta's the point, and that is why they both get one bit of information, ​No new information has been received. Long before the duplication button was pressed

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

Mein Gott, this argument reminds me of the fire in Siberia that started burning in the Holocene and is still going. Why do you keep taking the troll bait Bruno? JC is a physicist so I presume he understands Everett. Ergo, he understands, in principle, first person indeterminacy. He just loves

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On 03 Aug 2015, at 18:51, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​​​ ​​ ​Then you die with the simple teleportation. ​​ ​Then who will die in ​the simple teleportation​? ​ ​You, when you are in Helsinki. ​For the sake of clarity and

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ ​ For the sake of clarity and consistency when dealing with this topic John Clark humbly requests that ​Bruno Marchal make the following simple changes in future correspondence with John Clark: 1) Substitute John

RE: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

of M are THE 1p of H. Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:47:57 -0400 Subject: Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again From: johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​​ ​For the sake of clarity and consistency when

  1   2   >