On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:09 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 11/7/2012 1:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:07 AM, John Clark<johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Jason Resch<jasonre...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> If you are the experimenter what can physics tell you about the >>>>> particle's half life? It is not implied by the laws of physics because >>>>> there are many laws of physics. Until the experiment is performed, even >>>>> the laws of physics are not in stone. This is a main point of Bruno's >>>>> result: physics is not at the bottom of the explanatory ladder, the laws >>>>> of >>>>> physics depend on the distribution of observers similar to your current >>>>> state of mind throughout its infinite manifestations in reality. >>>>> >>>> >>> Physics is at the bottom of all non-mathematical things that have an >>> explanation, but we now know that some things have no explanation. We now >>> know that some things are random. >>> >>> >> Here you accept there is inherent randomness. >> >> Where do you think this randomness comes from? >> >> Do you think it is an objective feature of reality or only an illusion >> for observers? >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, John Clark<johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 Bruno Marchal<marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I don't see this at all. After the duplication all the John Clark >>>>> realise that they are in only one city, and that they were unable to >>>>> predict which one. So both of them understand that this peculiar >>>>> experience >>>>> was not predicable. >>>>> >>>> >>> Wrong! John Clark correctly predicted that the Moscow man would see >>> Moscow and the Washington man would see Moscow. John Clark doesn't >>> understand what more should be expected of a prediction; >>> >> If you have ever played a game like poker, you would see predictions >> all the time of the form: there is X% chance you experience winning >> the the pot and (1-X)% chance you experience losing or sharing the >> pot. You won't play the game very well if you operate under the >> theory that there is a 100% chance that you will experience winning, >> losing, and sharing the pot (as some of your duplicates in the >> multiverse inevitably do). >> > But it's hard to see what 1/pi of a duplicate would be. > I am not sure I understand what you mean. Where do you get 1/Pi from? What is your point? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
