On 28 Sep 2013, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/28/2013 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Sep 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
wrote:
> I do remember a conversation you had with Bruno about 5 years
ago when you were discussing what a man in Helsinki would
experience when undergoing the duplicator experiment.
Yes.
> I seem to recall you thought the man would experience being in
both places at once,
No, that is NOT what I said! I said that if Russell Standish were
duplicated then Russell Standish would be in Moscow and
Washington. I also said the vague and sloppy use of words like
"you"and "he" and "I" and "the man" is at the root of Bruno's
intense confusion, and apparently yours as well.
> which does violence to the notion of "survival after copying"
assumption of COMP.
Bullshit. And this beautifully illustrates why I am reluctant to
go back to square one and list all the blunders Bruno made in just
the first few pages that I read, I have already written about
6.02*10^23 posts that covers the subjects in this post and most
are in far far greater detail.
Just provide one link.
We have answered them all. You kept repeating the same confusion
between different person points of view, or, in some post, you
confuse the phenomenology of the indeterminacy with all their
different logical origins. In many, you just change the definitions
given.
I have come to the conclusion that logical arguments will not
convince anybody if it is their policy to first decide what they
want to believe and only then look for evidence to support it.
I have never met a scientist not convinced by the first person
indeterminacy, accepting to discuss this privately or publicly.
You try to avoid the debate, and that's the only strategy used by
philosophers to hide the (quite simple) discovery.
You act like a pseudo-religious dogmatic pseudo-philosopher, it
seems to me. If you would have a real argument, you would take a
pleasure to explain it calmly, and without using insults and
mocking hand waving.
So, provide an argument, answer the questions, or try to admit that
you lost your point.
I'm not sure you even need to convince JC of the FPI due to
duplication. He already believes there is uncertainty due to MWI of
QM. Isn't that enough for your argument to proceed.
It would make the derivation of quantum logic and QM circular. The
original point in the FPI is that we get a strong form of
indeterminacy which does not assumes QM, and the whole reversal
reasoning needs this.
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.