Re: Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-26 Thread Roger Clough
Time: 2012-12-24, 15:32:08 Subject: Re: Against Mechanism On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 2:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/24/2012 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch Since 1p has the property

Re: Re: Re: Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-26 Thread Roger Clough
content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-25, 09:37:35 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Against Mechanism Well if two people have the same mind and identity, then might they share the same soul (at least for a moment)? Jason On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Roger Clough

Fw: Re: Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-26 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Jason, I should have that if those two people can shake hands, they cannot be identical. - Have received the following content - Sender: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-26, 08:27:06 Subject: Re: Re: Against Mechanism Hi Jason Resch There is and cannot

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
- From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-24, 15:32:08 Subject: Re: Against Mechanism On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 2:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/24/2012 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

Re: Re: Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-25 Thread Roger Clough
, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-24, 11:13:17 Subject: Re: Re: Against Mechanism On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch Since 1p has

Re: Re: Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-25 Thread Jason Resch
- *From:* Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-12-24, 11:13:17 *Subject:* Re: Re: Against Mechanism On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Jason Resch Since 1p has the property

Re: Re: Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-25 Thread Richard Ruquist
is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-24, 11:13:17 Subject: Re: Re: Against Mechanism On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason

Re: Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-24 Thread Roger Clough
, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-22, 14:56:13 Subject: Re: Against Mechanism On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote

Re: Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-24 Thread Jason Resch
Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-22, 14:56:13 Subject: Re: Against Mechanism On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: In a world with duplicating chambers there is no such thing as the future 1p view. Of course

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-24 Thread meekerdb
On 12/24/2012 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch Since 1p has the property of perspective, and no two people can be at the same place at the same time, But could

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-24 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 2:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/24/2012 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Jason Resch Since 1p has the property of perspective, and no two people can be at the same place

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-23 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Dec 2012, at 19:54, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: In a world with duplicating chambers there is no such thing as the future 1p view. Of course there is. There are two such future 1-view. Then as I said, there is no such thing as the

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-23 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Dec 2012, at 22:01, meekerdb wrote: On 12/22/2012 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Deutsch et al. have solved the probability problem. I don't think so. If you are referring to his decision analysis, it only seems to work for simple binary choices - QM predicts probabilities that

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-23 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: as I said, there is no such thing as the future 1p view, there is only a future 1p view. But you have been duplicated. Yes. from your future person points of view In a world of duplicating machines there is no

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 20 Dec 2012, at 22:18, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You are asking about the present first person point of view of someone, NO. read the question: it is about a future first personal event. That is totally false! The

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-22 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: In a world with duplicating chambers there is no such thing as the future 1p view. Of course there is. There are two such future 1-view. Then as I said, there is no such thing as the future 1p view, there is only a future 1p

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-22 Thread Jason Resch
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: In a world with duplicating chambers there is no such thing as the future 1p view. Of course there is. There are two such future 1-view. Then as I said,

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-22 Thread Jason Resch
I meant to write: On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Your error is that you are generalizing this rule beyond its domain and you wrongly conclude it means there can never be any *difference in the*experimental outcome regardless of whether it is

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-22 Thread meekerdb
On 12/22/2012 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Deutsch et al. have solved the probability problem. I don't think so. If you are referring to his decision analysis, it only seems to work for simple binary choices - QM predicts probabilities that are often irrational numbers. Gleason's theorem

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 19 Dec 2012, at 17:19, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: the question is about a future first person points of view, That is incorrect and I'm surprised at such a elementary error in logic. This is rhetoric. No, in fact it is vitally

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-20 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You are asking about the present first person point of view of someone, NO. read the question: it is about a future first personal event. That is totally false! The Helsinki man is informing you about his PRESENT

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Dec 2012, at 19:53, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: it's true that after the duplication there will be 2 first person Bruno Marchal points of view, but the problem is that before the duplication there is only one first

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 15 Dec 2012, at 04:25, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/14/2012 6:07 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Dec 2012, at 21:54, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: In the 3p-view. But with the Computationalist Theory of Mind (CTM, alias comp), there are two first person points of view Yes, Bruno Marchal has said that many times

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 15 Dec 2012, at 00:07, meekerdb wrote: On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is proposing to explain.

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 15 Dec 2012, at 00:09, meekerdb wrote: On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent, I stopped a long time ago to read the 'transported' versions for one reason: if it is REALLY (only) a transport, it does not make a difference whether you will CONTINUE in Moscow or in Helsinki, it

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-16 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: it's true that after the duplication there will be 2 first person Bruno Marchal points of view, but the problem is that before the duplication there is only one first person point of view at it is here the question is

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-15 Thread Jason Resch
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:25 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and there are two of them and so there are 2 heres and 2 not theres. So what ONE and only ONE thing does John Clark the experimenter enter

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-15 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. John Clark is happy to read that but is somewhat skeptical it is true. I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is proposing to

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-15 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Subjective probability depends on the amount of information, or lack of it, the person involved has; and if Many Worlds is correct then all probabilities are subjective. If you told me nothing about the machine and just

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-15 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2012/12/15 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Subjective probability depends on the amount of information, or lack of it, the person involved has; and if Many Worlds is correct then all probabilities are subjective. If

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-15 Thread meekerdb
On 12/15/2012 9:50 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. John Clark is happy to read that but is somewhat skeptical it is true. I think it

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 13 Dec 2012, at 22:25, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and there are two of them and so there are 2 heres and 2 not theres. So what ONE and only ONE thing does John Clark the experimenter enter into the lab notebook??

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-14 Thread Craig Weinberg
So if there is a brain conjoined twin (Adam Ben) in Albuquerque and they are duplicated once in Buffalo and once in Cleveland, but in Cleveland something goes wrong and Adam does not get duplicated. What are you both saying happens to Adam Ben in Albuquerque and to Ben in Cleveland? Craig

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-14 Thread meekerdb
On 12/14/2012 12:54 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: In the 3p-view. But with the Computationalist Theory of Mind (CTM, alias comp), there are two first person points of view Yes, Bruno

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-14 Thread Craig Weinberg
If this were done in real life, my guess is that Bruno_w dies in the transporter (sorry Bruno), and a disoriented amnesiac identical twin is born at every transporter location. I don't know if these clones would even survive, I think they would be brain dead and lacking a heartbeat but maybe

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-14 Thread Stephen P. King
On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is proposing to explain. Suppose Bruno is Helsinki and he steps in a transporter and it sends him to Washington. That Bruno,

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-14 Thread John Mikes
Brent, I stopped a long time ago to read the 'transported' versions for one reason: if it is REALLY (only) a transport, it does not make a difference whether you will CONTINUE in Moscow or in Helsinki, it is 'your' undisrupted self. However, if it goes into a multiple existence then - my problem

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-14 Thread meekerdb
On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent, I stopped a long time ago to read the 'transported' versions for one reason: if it is REALLY (only) a transport, it does not make a difference whether you will CONTINUE in Moscow or in Helsinki, it is 'your' undisrupted self. However, if it goes

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-14 Thread Stephen P. King
On 12/14/2012 6:07 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is proposing to explain. Suppose Bruno

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-14 Thread Stephen P. King
On 12/14/2012 6:09 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent, I stopped a long time ago to read the 'transported' versions for one reason: if it is REALLY (only) a transport, it does not make a difference whether you will CONTINUE in Moscow or in Helsinki, it is

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Dec 2012, at 20:00, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:49:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-13 Thread Jason Resch
Craig, If in your theory sense is fundamental, a hence explains everything, how could your theory explain concepts like: Gravity Quantum mechanics Fine tuning It seems you need some formal laws and definitions concerning sense in order to build from it as a basis of understanding. What

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 13 Dec 2012, at 04:39, meekerdb wrote: On 12/12/2012 4:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-13 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is conscious No Deutsch does not agree with this, I know because I've talked to him about

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-13 Thread meekerdb
On 12/13/2012 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Dec 2012, at 04:39, meekerdb wrote: On 12/12/2012 4:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-13 Thread meekerdb
On 12/13/2012 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is conscious

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-13 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2012/12/13 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/13/2012 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-13 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and there are two of them and so there are 2 heres and 2 not theres. So what ONE and only ONE thing does John Clark the experimenterenter into the lab notebook?? You are hopeless. I've answered this at least

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-13 Thread Stephen P. King
On 12/13/2012 3:36 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/13/2012 11:46 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/12/13 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 12/13/2012 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your servitor: 1) Arithmetic (comp) :) Bruno To which I add: 0) That which perceives, understands, participates, and gives rise to comp. OK. But this is just to

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-12 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your servitor: 1) Arithmetic (comp) :) Bruno To which I add:

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your servitor: 1) Arithmetic (comp) :)

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-12 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations. Not quite. Deutsch's proposed experiment with reversible computation and an AI yields different results for the CI and MWI,

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-12 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:49:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-12 Thread meekerdb
On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations. Not quite. Deutsch's proposed experiment

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-12 Thread Jason Resch
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations. Not

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-12 Thread Stephen P. King
On 12/12/2012 7:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then what does? I think the experiment is meant to show collapse does not happen. And if there is no collapse then you have the MWI. Jason Hi, It seems to me that we would not

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-12 Thread Jason Resch
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 12/12/2012 7:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then what does? I think the experiment is meant to show collapse does not happen. And if there is no

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-12 Thread meekerdb
On 12/12/2012 4:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-12 Thread meekerdb
On 12/12/2012 5:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/12/2012 7:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then what

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM,

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:30, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a good explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a deterministic one. But simply postulating an ensemble of

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 10 Dec 2012, at 19:54, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: From whose perspective is there a single unique result? From my perspective! Whenever I, the simple non-godlike experimenter, send a photon (or electron) through 2 slits

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread meekerdb
On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread meekerdb
On 12/11/2012 7:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:30, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a good explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a deterministic one.

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM,

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:09 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/11/2012 7:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:30, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a good

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:23:08 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Dec 2012, at 18:05, meekerdb wrote: On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2012 10:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Dec 2012, at 18:09, meekerdb wrote: On 12/11/2012 7:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:30, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a good explanation. I'm all for finding a

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread meekerdb
On 12/11/2012 9:23 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your servitor: 1) Arithmetic (comp) :) Bruno To which I add: 0) That which perceives, understands, participates, and gives rise to comp. :) Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread meekerdb
On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: in simpler theories, like the CTM or Everett QM. Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations. Not quite. Deutsch's proposed experiment with reversible computation and an AI yields different results for the CI and MWI, thus

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread meekerdb
On 12/11/2012 9:53 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2012 10:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

RE: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread William R. Buckley
Also, we do not experience a reality. We experience something (consciousness, mainly) and we extrapolate reality from that, and from theories already extrapolated. Bruno has it down! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-11 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:40:58 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote: Also, we do not experience a reality. We experience something (consciousness, mainly) and we extrapolate reality from that, and from theories already extrapolated. Bruno has it down! Agreed, but

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: And without a

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 10 Dec 2012, at 07:32, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2012 12:08

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-10 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-10 Thread meekerdb
On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-10 Thread meekerdb
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a good explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a deterministic one. But simply postulating an ensemble of worlds to make the probabilities deterministic in

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-10 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:25 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun,

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-10 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a good explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a deterministic one. But simply

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-10 Thread meekerdb
On 12/10/2012 5:41 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-10 Thread meekerdb
On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a good explanation.

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-10 Thread Jason Resch
On Dec 10, 2012, at 12:54 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: From whose perspective is there a single unique result? From my perspective! Whenever I, the simple non-godlike experimenter, send a photon (or

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-10 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-10 Thread meekerdb
On 12/10/2012 10:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Dec 2012, at 02:23, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: People change over time and the meaning of the pronoun associated with that changing person will change over time too, and the meaning of the pronoun will change even more suddenly if a duplicating

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-09 Thread Jason Resch
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 12:37 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If I understand your point correctly the deciding factor of an experiment's value is whether there is a result obtained not known before the

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-09 Thread meekerdb
On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics among working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate), That's not an interpretation at all. Well for a more philosophical statement of it see Omnes. His view is

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-09 Thread meekerdb
On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: This reminded me a bit of The Presumptuous Philosopher thought experiment: It is the year 2100 and physicists have narrowed down the search for a theory of everything to only two remaining plausible candidate theories, T1 and T2 (using

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-09 Thread Jason Resch
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics among working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate), That's not an interpretation at all. Well

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-09 Thread meekerdb
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics among working

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-09 Thread meekerdb
On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Dec 2012, at 18:33, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Doing the experience yourself Which one is yourself after duplication? One of them with P = 1/2. That neatly sums up the entire problem, Indeed. the insistence that there is only

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-08 Thread meekerdb
On 12/8/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: People change over time and the meaning of the pronoun associated with that changing person will change over time too, and the meaning of the pronoun will change even more suddenly if a duplicating chamber is used. But both remember the protocol, and

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-07 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Doing the experience yourself Which one is yourself after duplication? One of them with P = 1/2. That neatly sums up the entire problem, the insistence that there is only one correct answer to the question what city will you

  1   2   3   4   >