Re: For John Clark

2014-03-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2014-03-01 Thread LizR
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

Re: For John Clark

2014-02-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:46, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
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: On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote:

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 allco...@gmail.com wrote: You have been duplicated so there are TWO

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-04 Thread Jason Resch
On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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: On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Nov 2013, at 15:57, Jason Resch wrote: On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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: On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: On

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-04 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Nov 2013, at 15:57, Jason Resch wrote: On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:51, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2013-11-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Nov 2013, at 18:53, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 allco...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-03 Thread Jason Resch
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Oct 2013, at 19:30, Jason Resch wrote: Normally this is explained in Albert's book,

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Oct 2013, at 19:30, Jason Resch wrote:

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-03 Thread Jason Resch
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 johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-03 Thread Jason Resch
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-03 Thread Telmo Menezes
Hi John, On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:13 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-03 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-03 Thread meekerdb
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 allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: You have been duplicated so there are TWO FIRST PERSON

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 03 Nov 2013, at 16:22, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-02 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-02 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-02 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 5:13 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 johnkcl...@gmail.com On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote The diary is useless because the diary was written

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Nov 2013, at 11:13, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-02 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-02 Thread Jason Resch
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-02 Thread meekerdb
On 11/2/2013 10:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread LizR
So, has step 3 gone from that's absurd to everyone knows that ?! On 1 November 2013 17:31, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:51 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: A) The test

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:54 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: this distracts from the question asked, which concerns the first person pov, from the first person pov. That is the first person experience. [...]

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 31 Oct 2013, at 18:54, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 31 Oct 2013, at 20:49, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 01 Nov 2013, at 02:51, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 step,

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Le 1 nov. 2013 00:39, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com 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?

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Richard Ruquist
Intuition On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Le 1 nov. 2013 00:39, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Quentin Anciaux
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 yann...@gmail.com Intuition On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Le 1 nov. 2013 00:39,

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2013/11/1 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com 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,

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2013/11/1 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/1 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: OK. I should have said suggests intuitively: or intuitively suggests rather than merely

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Richard Ruquist
Telmo, Do you think Quentin should be banned for bullying? On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/1 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2013/11/1 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com 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,

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 01 Nov 2013, at 08:06, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:54 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: this distracts from the question asked, which concerns the first person pov, from the first

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:04 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Jason Resch
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:40 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:04 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2013/11/1 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:04 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2013-11-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
Liz, On 01 Nov 2013, at 17:40, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:04 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Richard Ruquist
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

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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)

Re: For John Clark

2013-11-01 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2013/11/1 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

2013-11-01 Thread LizR
On 2 November 2013 15:57, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:21, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/10/30 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno asked me Do you think that you die in a self-duplication experience? and I said that depends on what the

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-31 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-31 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2013/10/31 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-31 Thread meekerdb
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 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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)

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-31 Thread Jason Resch
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

2013-10-31 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2013/10/31 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-31 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2013/10/31 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-31 Thread Richard Ruquist
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 allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/31 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: As

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-31 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-31 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-31 Thread Jason Resch
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:51 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-30 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-30 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2013/10/30 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-29 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-29 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2013/10/29 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-29 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2013/10/29 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/10/29 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-28 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-28 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2013/10/28 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-28 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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

RE: For John Clark

2013-10-28 Thread chris peck
will be problematic. but again my modal logic is very rusty so I won't argue the point ... Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:18:48 -0500 Subject: Re: For John Clark From: jasonre...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 9:04 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
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, so

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Quentin Anciaux
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 johnkcl...@gmail.com On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Quentin Anciaux
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 johnkcl...@gmail.com On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2013/10/27 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Oct 2013, at 15:54, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Oct 2013, at 16:47, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Oct 2013, at 17:27, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/10/27 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: I came across this today, which you might find of interest: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf In particular

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 7:47 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com 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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Jason Resch
John, Do you have any comment on the article I posted? Jason On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 10:52 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: You're just lying... You are the one treating things inconsistently, it's a

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread meekerdb
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

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Jason Resch
John, Sorry, I missed your reply. Some comment's in-line below: On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 9:54 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: I came across this today, which you might find of interest:

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Oct 2013, at 17:30, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Do you think that [you] die in a self-duplication experience? ^^^ We've been through this, it depends on who the hell you is. Is you

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Oct 2013, at 18:08, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question* about the probability of *you* (who is you ? pinocchio maybe ?) In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Oct 2013, at 18:24, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: We have already agree that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki. Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you will

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Oct 2013, at 20:44, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Fine, if the MWI is true and if the same definition of you is used as Bruno's definition, namely that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Oct 2013, at 22:28, meekerdb wrote: On 10/25/2013 9:08 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question* about the probability of *you* (who is you ? pinocchio maybe ?) In the

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Oct 2013, at 23:33, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: Citeren meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 10/25/2013 9:08 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question*

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-26 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Well, you could always reciprocate Quentin's courtesy and [...] Courtesy? This is the fellow who said: Your agenda is not to try to comprehend something, it is just to bash someone with no reason except

  1   2   3   >