On 17 Jul 2014, at 20:31, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
What difference do you se between comp and computationalism?
Why ask me?
Because you are the one pretending than comp is not computationalism.
You're the one who felt
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 1:00 pm
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
On 17 Jul 2014, at 18:37, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
in arithmetic, or equivalent.
It is amazing, without doubt, but part of standard computer science.
Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 18, 2014 6:56 am
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
.
Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 1:00 pm
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
On 17 Jul 2014, at 18:37, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc
it possible to test the computationalist hypothesis.
Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 18, 2014 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
On 18 Jul 2014, at 16:54, spudboy100 via
On 16 Jul 2014, at 20:43, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
John Clark is NOT a comp believer.
This contradicts the fact that you are OK with step 0, and step 1,
and step 2.
I'm not surprised. I've long ago forgotten what those
Computationalism is necessarily consistent, but may not be complete except
in nearly infinite domains.
Richard
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Jul 2014, at 20:43, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 17 Jul 2014, at 14:42, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Computationalism is necessarily consistent,
I am not sure we can know that, at least in any reasonably justifiable
way.
but may not be complete except in nearly infinite domains.
It is incomplete with respect to arithmetical truth,
/physics_resurrection-105440
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 11:29 am
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
On 17 Jul 2014, at 14:42, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Computationalism is necessarily
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Computationalism is contradictory?
No. Computationalism is not contradictory, but comp is.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
On 17 Jul 2014, at 18:37, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Computationalism is contradictory?
No. Computationalism is not contradictory, but comp is.
What difference do you se between comp and computationalism?
Comp is used as
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
What difference do you se between comp and computationalism?
Why ask me? You're the one who felt that computationalism didn't
adequately convey the idea you had and so you needed to invent a new word,
a word used on this
Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 1:00 pm
Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch
On 17 Jul 2014, at 18:37, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
On 15 Jul 2014, at 16:35, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Of course there is. You know when in Helsinki, (as a comp believer)
John Clark is NOT a comp believer.
This contradicts the fact that you are OK with step 0, and step 1,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John Clark is NOT a comp believer.
This contradicts the fact that you are OK with step 0, and step 1, and
step 2.
I'm not surprised. I've long ago forgotten what those steps were but I do
know that If one starts with
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Of course there is. You know when in Helsinki, (as a comp believer)
John Clark is NOT a comp believer.
what do you expect about the evolution of your subjective life,
There are now 2 , so which subjective life?
like
On 13 July 2014 05:34, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If there are two (and there are) why didn't Bruno Marchal ask what
cities John Clark will see from *a* 1p?
That is the 3p view *on* the future 1-views.
The? why
On 12 July 2014 23:14, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 July 2014 05:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If the MWI is correct, the electron spin question is equivalent to the
teleporter question.
No it is not and
Le 13 juil. 2014 12:42, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit :
On 12 July 2014 23:14, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 July 2014 05:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If the MWI is correct, the electron spin question is
On 12 Jul 2014, at 19:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If there are two (and there are) why didn't Bruno Marchal ask
what cities John Clark will see from *a* 1p?
That is the 3p view *on* the future 1-views.
The? why not *a* future
On 13 Jul 2014, at 12:37, LizR wrote:
On 13 July 2014 05:34, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If there are two (and there are) why didn't Bruno Marchal ask
what cities John Clark will see from *a* 1p?
That is the 3p view
On 11 Jul 2014, at 19:41, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If the MWI is correct, the electron spin question is equivalent to
the teleporter question.
No it is not and I've given my reasons why it is not over and over
and over and over
On 12 July 2014 05:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If the MWI is correct, the electron spin question is equivalent to the
teleporter question.
No it is not and I've given my reasons why it is not over and over and
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If there are two (and there are) why didn't Bruno Marchal ask what
cities John Clark will see from *a* 1p?
That is the 3p view *on* the future 1-views.
The? why not *a* future 1-view
Because as you just agree above, there
Le 12 juil. 2014 19:34, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If there are two (and there are) why didn't Bruno Marchal ask
what cities John Clark will see from *a* 1p?
That is the 3p view *on* the future 1-views.
The?
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If the MWI is correct, the electron spin question is equivalent to the
teleporter question.
No it is not and I've given my reasons why it is not over and over and over
and over again. If you disagree with my reasons then fine but
Le 11 juil. 2014 19:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If the MWI is correct, the electron spin question is equivalent to the
teleporter question.
No it is not and I've given my reasons why it is not over and over
Now, I take some rest by answering an easy an rather clear post.
On 10 Jul 2014, at 21:40, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I assume comp
Well good for comp.
I will push on the button, and I know I will not find myself in
both
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I assume comp
Well good for comp.
I will push on the button, and I know I will not find myself in both
city.
Exactly.
Only in one from my future first person perspective,
There are 2 future first person
If the MWI is correct, the electron spin question is equivalent to the
teleporter question.
In the electron spin scenario, the scientist could reasonably answer I
expect to see spin up with 50% probability, and spin-down with 50%
probability, and everyone would know what he meant. But he *could*
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Obviously if duplication is possible then singular pronouns become
plural ones in the process.
Yes, and yet Bruno still demands to know what one and only one city
*you* will see. And things are not made clear if Bruno
On 09 Jul 2014, at 18:19, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Obviously if duplication is possible then singular pronouns
become plural ones in the process.
Yes, and yet Bruno still demands to know what one and only one
city
On 03 Jul 2014, at 21:10, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:13 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The yes doctor thing says that if H-guy is destroyed in the
process of being scanned prior to transmission, then he will see
Then who will see?
M or W (or both, depending on how
On 03 Jul 2014, at 21:51, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I predict that the H-guy will see Helsinki, unless you destroy
him immediately after duplication
That is indeed the case in the step 3 protocol.
Fine, then currently
On 04 Jul 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote (to John Calrk)
Well, perhaps. I'm no so sure I'd be happy that there is a duplicate
of me who's OK if I'm facing death. How about a duplicate who split
off from you a week ago? Would you be happy to be murdered knowing
that he was alive and well, and
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously if duplication is possible then singular pronouns become plural
ones in the process.
Yes, and yet Bruno still demands to know what one and only one city *you*
will see. And things are not made clear if Bruno adds from
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the H-guy has not vanished.
That depends on what the H-guy means.
By comp
I don't give a rat's ass about comp.
he is in both W and M,
So the H-guy is in both W and M but the H-guy is not in W and M. Are
you SURE
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I predict that the H-guy will see Helsinki, unless you destroy him
immediately after duplication
That is indeed the case in the step 3 protocol.
Fine, then currently nobody is seeing Helsinki.
in which case the
2014-07-03 21:51 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I predict that the H-guy will see Helsinki, unless you destroy him
immediately after duplication
That is indeed the case in the step 3 protocol.
Fine,
On 4 July 2014 07:10, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:13 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The yes doctor thing says that if H-guy is destroyed in the process of
being scanned prior to transmission, then he will see
Then who will see?
Two copies of
On 4 Jul 2014, at 11:31 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Another bloviating blustering belligerent bellicose bunch of bollocks from Mr
Clark follows:
For the moment forget what your third grade English teacher may have said
and answer the following question:
For the moment maybe switch
On 2 Jul 2014, at 12:46 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Brent:
I don't think that's true. I think differently than I did as a child. As a
child one experiences many more things as new, fresh, surprising.
Liz:
OK, so you disagree with Kim (or my reading of Kim) on that. You're on
On 7/2/2014 5:07 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 2 Jul 2014, at 12:46 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
Brent:
I don't think that's true. I think differently than I did as a child. As
a child
one experiences many more things as new, fresh, surprising.
Liz:
On 3 Jul 2014, at 5:09 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
A brain simply hosts a self, best generalised as a mind. This might be the
same as soul, but I'm not really into the supernatural, only a vastly
expanded reality.
Based on assertions about your feelings?
Brent
Yes.
On 1 July 2014 17:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/30/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote:
Well, that's quite straightforward. Brent is assuming the (so called)
Aristotelean paradigm, and hence that his mother *is* her brain.
I'm assuming (on some evidence) that she, her stream of
On 7/1/2014 1:09 AM, LizR wrote:
On 1 July 2014 17:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/30/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote:
Well, that's quite straightforward. Brent is assuming the (so called)
Aristotelean
paradigm, and hence that his mother /is/
On 2 July 2014 05:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/1/2014 1:09 AM, LizR wrote:
On 1 July 2014 17:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/30/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote:
Well, that's quite straightforward. Brent is assuming the (so called)
Aristotelean paradigm, and
Liz:
Another way of looking at it
Kim (interrupting in annoying fashion):
There speaks a real thinker with precisely those words. Perception and
observation is where we start. There is - wait for it - more than one way of
viewing a bunch of data. It depends which glasses you have on your
On 29 Jun 2014, at 18:33, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
the H-guy cannot be sure about its future 1-view *from the unique
1-view
Unique? That implies that there is one and only one correct answer
to the question of what the
On 6/30/2014 12:51 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
You are all of these people. You can only experience one of these people. You or God can
never know which one you will most likely experience 5 minutes from now let alone after
a year's storage before being emailed to Uranus or Washington or Scotland.
On 1 Jul 2014, at 4:57 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Much is made of observer-moments and their sequence, but I just got back from
my mother's 100th birthday party. She's still relatively sharp and lives
alone, but it's also clear that she's fading. Her sensory perceptions
Well, that's quite straightforward. Brent is assuming the (so called)
Aristotelean paradigm, and hence that his mother *is* her brain. Kim is
assuming that it's possible the (so called) Platonic paradigm holds, and
she may not be (and that something like comp may therefore be correct).
I wonder
On 6/30/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote:
Well, that's quite straightforward. Brent is assuming the (so called) Aristotelean
paradigm, and hence that his mother /is/ her brain.
I'm assuming (on some evidence) that she, her stream of consciousness, is what her brain
does. For example, she remembers
On 26 Jun 2014, at 22:27, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
We use the usual sense of self defined by the yes doctor.
Nobody does that, even you don't do that to define yourself
except when you're arguing philosophy on the
On 26 Jun 2014, at 03:58, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 03:06, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
And that one guy is Mr. You. Yes, it's perfectly true that other
guys have seen different sequences and those other guys are not each
other, but they are all Mr. You because they all
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the H-guy cannot be sure about its future 1-view *from the unique 1-view
Unique? That implies that there is one and only one correct answer to the
question of what the Helsinki Man will see, so after the exparament is
Le 29 juin 2014 18:33, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the H-guy cannot be sure about its future 1-view *from the unique
1-view
Unique? That implies that there is one and only one correct answer to the
On 30 June 2014 04:33, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the H-guy cannot be sure about its future 1-view *from the unique
1-view
Unique? That implies that there is one and only one correct answer to the
On 25 Jun 2014, at 17:06, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Predictions are great for validating scientific theories but
predictions, good bad or ugly, have absolutely nothing to do with
establishing a sense of self.
We use the
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We use the usual sense of self defined by the yes doctor.
Nobody does that, even you don't do that to define yourself except
when you're arguing philosophy on the internet.
?
!
We use that all the time. I do it
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Predictions are great for validating scientific theories but
predictions, good bad or ugly, have absolutely nothing to do with
establishing a sense of self.
We use the usual sense of self defined by the yes doctor.
On 26 June 2014 03:06, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
And that one guy is Mr. You. Yes, it's perfectly true that other guys have
seen different sequences and those other guys are not each other, but they
are all Mr. You because they all remember being the Helsinki Man even if
On 23 Jun 2014, at 18:29, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
according to you not believing in God is a variant of
Christianity, and obviously believing in God is another variant of
Christianity, therefore every human being who
On 19 Jun 2014, at 20:25, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
That machine does not know in advance its future state, and
that is what I meant.
So a Turing Machine has free will.
Not all turing machine, you need one which can
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
there is a 1-3 confusion here (is it volontarily?).
Oh yes, I always voluntarily strive to be confused because when one is
presented with nonsense the only logical response is confusion.
I predict only 0.5 in most
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
according to you not believing in God is a variant of Christianity, and
obviously believing in God is another variant of Christianity, therefore
every human being who ever lived is a Christian except for those who don't
On 23 Jun 2014, at 18:17, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
there is a 1-3 confusion here (is it volontarily?).
Oh yes, I always voluntarily strive to be confused because when one
is presented with nonsense the only logical
On 21 June 2014 16:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 9:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
that doesn't actually alter the logic of the argument, which is
only concerned with what he reports in his diary.
He? 3 people are keeping a diary, one writes
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 6:29 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
I won't enter with you again on this debate
Coward.
Call him a coward johnnie boy
OK I will ghibbsaboy.
wot about you?
At least I have enough courage to sign my real name, the name on my birth
certificate is John K Clark,
On 19 Jun 2014, at 02:00, LizR wrote:
PS I must say I find step 3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp.
Presumably you've accepted the original assumptions and the first
two steps. Most people either disagree with the original
assumption(s), or go for the MGA (i.e. the reversal - the
On 19 Jun 2014, at 02:00, LizR wrote:
PS I must say I find step 3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp.
Presumably you've accepted the original assumptions and the first
two steps. Most people either disagree with the original
assumption(s), or go for the MGA (i.e. the reversal - the
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:15 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
the probability that Mr. He will see Moscow is 1.0 not 0.5 as Bruno
says.
I agree,
Good.
but
But? There is no but, Bruno predicted 0.5, we observe 1.0, game over.
I don't see that it invalidates his argument. In
On 19 Jun 2014, at 19:25, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You mean that you made many attempts to find a blunder, but we
were more than three to show you that in each case, you were
confusing 1-views and 3-views.
That was your
On 22 Jun 2014, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:15 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
the probability that Mr. He will see Moscow is 1.0 not 0.5 as
Bruno says.
I agree,
Good.
but
But? There is no but, Bruno predicted 0.5, we observe 1.0, game
over.
OK. That
On 23 June 2014 05:49, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:15 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
the probability that Mr. He will see Moscow is 1.0 not 0.5 as Bruno
says.
I agree,
Good.
but
But? There is no but, Bruno predicted 0.5, we observe 1.0,
On 23 June 2014 06:24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jun 2014, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:15 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
the probability that Mr. He will see Moscow is 1.0 not 0.5 as Bruno
says.
I agree,
Good.
but
But? There
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 4:53:29 AM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux allc...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
I won't enter with you again on this debate
Coward.
Call him a coward johnnie boywot about you? :O) I just went to that
trouble
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
And in the MWI how will YOU know if the 0.5 prediction was correct?
And in the comp experiment how will YOU know [...]
Just like Bruno Quentin Anciaux is incapable of expressing Quentin
Anciaux's ideas without
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
So if you ask Helsinki-man what he expects to see when he steps out of
the matter transmitter
At that point its no longer the Helsinki Man, the things seen after he
steps out of the matter transmitter booth will transform the
You're so full of it... well I won't enter with you again on this debate...
I've waited too much years... so ok.
Byebye
2014-06-20 21:28 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
And in the MWI how will YOU know
On 21 June 2014 07:45, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
So if you ask Helsinki-man what he expects to see when he steps out of
the matter transmitter
At that point its no longer the Helsinki Man, the things seen after
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
I won't enter with you again on this debate
Coward.
Byebye
Byebye
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 9:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
that doesn't actually alter the logic of the argument, which is
only concerned with what he reports in his diary.
He? 3 people are keeping a diary, one writes I'm still here in
Helsinki and nothing has happened, maybe the
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You mean that you made many attempts to find a blunder, but we were more
than three to show you that in each case, you were confusing 1-views and
3-views.
That was your one and only retort in our debate, no explanation
2014-06-19 19:25 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You mean that you made many attempts to find a blunder, but we were more
than three to show you that in each case, you were confusing 1-views and
3-views.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That machine does not know in advance its future state, and that is
what I meant.
So a Turing Machine has free will.
Not all turing machine, you need one which can guess that she does not
know.
There is nothing
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If after saying whats wrong with Bruno's vacuous proof over and over
and over and over and over and over again for 3 years and you still ask
what is it then what would be the point of me repeating it yet again?
If you've said
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:25 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That machine does not know in advance its future state, and that is
what I meant.
So a Turing Machine has free will.
Not all turing machine,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
you accept 1/3 distinction in MWI
Forget MWI, EVERYBODY who is not in a padded cell accepts the 1/3
distinction.
please do not come again with the I could meet my doppelganger crap.
In MWI the laws of physics
2014-06-19 21:10 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
you accept 1/3 distinction in MWI
Forget MWI, EVERYBODY who is not in a padded cell accepts the 1/3
distinction.
please do not come again with
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No the I before measuring the spin, is as clear as the I pushing the
button, no confusion... When I ask that I what is the probability he'll see
spin up *UNDER MWI WHERE YOU'LL BE DUPLICATED DOING SUCH EXPERIMENT*,
2014-06-19 21:55 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
No the I before measuring the spin, is as clear as the I pushing the
button, no confusion... When I ask that I what is the probability he'll see
spin up
2014-06-19 22:52 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2014-06-19 21:55 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
No the I before measuring the spin, is as clear as the I pushing the
button, no
On 20 June 2014 06:32, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If after saying whats wrong with Bruno's vacuous proof over and
over and over and over and over and over again for 3 years and you
still ask what is it then what
On 20 June 2014 07:10, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
you accept 1/3 distinction in MWI
Forget MWI, EVERYBODY who is not in a padded cell accepts the 1/3
distinction.
OK, so there isn't any real problem
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote
:
I read the first 3 steps, Bruno made blunders in step 3; a proof is
built on the foundations of previous steps therefor it would be idiotic to
keep reading a proof, any proof, after a mistake has been found.
That's fair
On 16 Jun 2014, at 19:57, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
If free will just means will then why stick on the free ?
Because we believe that free does not add anything,
Except bafflegab.
Only because you quote an half
On 13 Jun 2014, at 21:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/13/2014 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Free-will or will are high level cognitive ability of machine
having enough introspective ability.
But not to much! :-)
Indeed :-)
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On 13 Jun 2014, at 21:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/13/2014 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Jun 2014, at 01:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2014 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually Grim and another guy studied version of Gödel and Löb
theorem in fuzzy logic (meaning that they
On 18 Jun 2014, at 00:41, LizR wrote:
On 18 June 2014 04:23, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Other that the fact than your use of personal pronouns was
inexcusably sloppy and inconsistent for a good logician, I have long
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
