On 12 Feb 2014, at 01:17, chris peck wrote:
Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc
>> Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument)
and I invited him to elaborate, as that might give possible
lightening. He did not comply, and I was beginning that UDA was
problematical for people named "Chris".
I think Clark should elaborate on his arguments rather than me,
firstly because he'll do it better than I ever could and secondly it
will save me the embarrassment if I have him wrong.
Come on, the poor guy tried hard since two years, and has convinced
only him. But you said you do understood him, so it would be
interesting you try to explain (except that it is rather easy to see
that he is incoherent, as all replies to him have shown. He just stop
the reasoning in the middle, or change the definitions).
I've elaborated at length on my own criticisms of step 3 and stand
by them.
It was not a refutation, as I have explained.
I will say though that I find it astonishing if people work their
way through Bruno's steps and claim to understand them and then
maintain that Clark's erudite and ofttimes witty criticisms are in
some way obtuse or difficult to follow.
Really? What do you understand in Clark's argument?
That the person who actually devised the steps themselves remains
confused about Clark's comments almost beggars belief. There;s
something very odd about that.
The argument just shows that you cannot program a robot so that it can
predicts a specific happening, which must exist if we assume comp.
Can you show us that algorithm? Or explain how it could exist?
There is some fuss about Clark's reluctance to apply his argument to
MWI. Like some others I think Clark possibly makes a misstep when
(if?) he defends the notion of 1p in-determinism within an MWI
context. I can see though that in Comp people are duplicated within
worlds whereas in MWI they are duplicated between worlds, and there
possibly are some repercussions vis a vis the proper use of pro-
nouns because of that.
The 1p and 3p definitions shows this to be irrelevant. or use that to
refute step 3. Clark has not succeeded in this task, and his argument
confuse 3-1 view with 1-views, systematically.
Im not sure it matters much, because Clark could be right about Comp
and just inconsistent about MWI. So this complaint, loudly pursued
by Quentin, has always seemed impotent to me and not worth bothering
about.
Im reluctant to get involved in the step 3 discussions because,
mentioning no names Quentin and PGC, people can get very emotional
and arm wavey about people criticizing Bruno's metaphysics.
Which metaphysics? It is a reasoning, simply. the assumption is that
you can survive with a digital brain. Are you, like Clark, OK with
step 0, 1, and 2?
And, if you are not OK with step 3 for a genuine reason, just tell it
to us. of course, if it is just literary philosophical hand waving,
which I suspect (to be franc, due to you absence of doubt on the
question), then some people can get emotional, as we are used and
sometimes tired with that kind of pseudo-philosophical non-arguments.
If step 3 is false, just provide the needed algorithm to prove this.
Bruno
So for now at least, I'll limit myself to recommending the odd sci-
fi movie on the film thread. The Quiet Earth (1985) is a little
known gem, btw.
All the best
Chris.
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:00:42 +1300
Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist<yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the
viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured
Correctly, I assume.
and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on
Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction.
That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials
have a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that
presumably have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to
explain EPR when you can do it very simply anyway?
And how can it be done very simply?
By dropping Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric
(for the particles used in an EPR experiment, which are generally
photons).
Please explain how dropping asymmetric time explains EPR.
It makes it logically possible. I will have to ask a physicist for
the details, but it is a mechanism whereby the state of the
measuring apparatus can influence the state of the entire system. If
we assume the emitter creates a pair of entangled photons and their
polarisation is measured at two spacelike-separated locations, then
the polarisers can act as a constraint on the state of the photons
and hence of the system, and that the setting of one polariser can
therefore influence the polarisation measured in the other branch of
the experiment (without any FTL signals / non-locality).
This preserves realism and locality at the expense of dropping an
assumption that most physicists think is untrue anyway (though the
idea of time being asymmetric is so deeply ingrained that we
automatically assume it must be true of systems it doesn't apply to,
like single photons).
Your explanation is hardly satisfactory for this physicist
That's because I'm not a physicist. I'm merely showing that an
explanation is possible, and hence should be investigated (although
it isn'tme showing this - it's been looked into by various people,
from Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory onwards).
It has been considered a satisfactory basis for an explanation of
Bell's Inequality by some physicists, including John Bell.
--
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.
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.