On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> Richard, and Bruno, > > I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing. > Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of > the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever > come up with. It's right up there with block time, > That's funny, I've always lumped together "presentist" theories of time with wave function collapse, since they both have the same motivation and make the same error: they explain away why we are aware of only one world, or one point in time, when there is no reason to add these additional suppositions, since the theory itself tells us why we are unaware of other times and other branches of the wave function. "Nor can I ever sufficiently admire Copernicus and his followers. They have through sheer force of intellect, done such violence to their own senses, as to prefer what reason told them over what sensible experience plainly showed them." -- Galileo > and many worlds nonsense. > Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light). So what are you giving up: single outcomes of measurements or no faster-than-light influences? > > Surely Bruno can't be basing reality on human experience? After all > reality worked just fine for multiple billions of years before humans. > The UDA doesn't base reality on experience, it bases reality on relations between numbers. All we see emerges from this: including conscious experience and appearances of physical realities. Jason > > On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:34:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: > >> Bruno, >> >> I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or >> whatever) of humans >> strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human >> consciousness. >> Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list. >> Richard >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> >> >> On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> >> >> He did answer and did it correctly, >> >> >> > I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? >> >> I quote myself: >> >> >>> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the >> question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about "the 3p >> view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a >> fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first >> person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth >> right now? >> >> >> >1 (I already answered this, note) >> >> No you did not. >> >> > from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. >> >> That's real nice, but it wasn't the question. >> >> How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? >> John Clark's answer: 7 billion. >> >> How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? >> Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. >> >> >> I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now. >> Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view. >> >> >> >> >> > Can you explain why you ask? >> >> >> Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and >> 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said "the >> first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view" and >> it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by >> this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many >> first person experiences views from their first person points of view >> existed on planet Earth right now. >> It is a simple question, what is the number? >> >> >> In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such >> human 1-view. >> In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view. >> >> OK? >> >> This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated >> iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and >> after the 10th duplication, there 2^10 1-views. But assuming comp and the >> default hypotheses, each of the >> copies get one bi >> >> ... > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
