On 21 Feb 2014, at 19:07, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> if it is about a prediction on 1p events, the specificity is
simple: we have to interview all the copies.
Then don't just talk to the Moscow Man and say that is enough to
disprove the prediction that the Helsinki Man will see Moscow AND
Washington because the Moscow Man, the one and only person you
talked to, says he didn't see Washington.
I said that we have to interview all copies.
Not that predictions have any relevance to matters of self identity.
Self-identity is not what we talk about.
>> I don't give a hoot in hell if the incoherent grab bag of ideas
you call "comp" is false or not. The word is your invention not mine
and you're the only one who seems to know exactly what it means.
> You have repeated that sentence an infinity of times.
I've told you a billion times don't exaggerate!
> Comp is the quite standard hypothesis [...]
"Comp" is NOBODY'S standard hypothesis, I have never in my life
heard a scientist use the word "comp". Not once. And don't tell me
that it means Computationalism
It is. I have used so often computationalism on this list that I
called it "comp", but I call it indexical mechanism in "conscience &
mécanisme", and "computationalism" in most other text.
and you're just too lazy to type the extra letters, if it were just
that then after I had complained about it "an infinite" number of
times I think you would have stopped being so lazy. I think there is
much more to it than that, there must be because I agree with
Computationalism but I sure as hell don't agree with "comp".
Computationalism is what we assume. What you don't admit are the
consequence. tell what do add or retrieve for comp to get the
consequence, if you think we don't get them from comp. But we know why
you don't get the consequence: you confuse, or deliberately ignore the
1-3 p distinctions.
>> you once said something abut "the future 1p" of the Helsinki man,
well that description would fit 2 people because both remember being
the Helsinki man.
> yes, and that is why the confirmation is asked to the 2 people.
Exactly, there are 2 people not just 1 who will inhabit "the future
1p" , or more precisely "a future 1p" of the Helsinki Man, so
interviewing just one man would not provide enough information to
know if the prediction "John Clark will see both Moscow and
Washington" was correct or not, but after interviewing both you
would know enough to be able to judge the truth or falsehood of the
prediction, and in this case you'd know that the prediction was
correct.
Which one? Yours "W & M"?
Not at all. You have already agreed that both feel to be in one city.
So if I interview both, they will both confirm "W v M", and they will
both refute "W & M".
Not that predictions, good or bad, would matter in the slightest,
not if you're talking about consciousness and the nature of self
identity.
But I am not. I talk about prediction. It is the main notion to
understand that physics has to be redefined as a probability calculus
on first person view associated to computation.
So to sum up, did the Washington Man see Moscow? No. Did the Moscow
Man see Washington? No. Was the Washington Man once the Helsinki
Man? Yes. Was the Moscow Man once the Helsinki Man? Yes. Is the
Moscow Man the Washington Man? No. Is the Washington Man the Moscow
Man? No.
Good.
Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes.
In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view. Your persistent 1-3 confusion
again. <sigh>
>> I too have discovered a new sort of indeterminacy that involves
math and it is very very similar to the sort you discovered; I add 2
to the number 3 and I add 8 to the number 3. The number 3 can't
predict if it will end up as a 5 or as a 11. I believe my discovery
is just as profound as yours. Not very.
> So you accept that step 3 is a discovery?
I think my "discovery" is virtually identical to yours and is just
as profound. Not very.
So that's it. You blow the candle of another because you are jealous
he published it and exploit to get something, and you don't even look
at that something?
You know, to discover something is not enough. The real discovery is
in the understanding that something apparently "not deep" is actually
very deep. In this case it shows that Aristotle theology must be
replaced by Plato's theology, when assuming computationalism, and
that, consequently, physics, or physics' core non geographical truth,
must be retrieved from the logic of self-reference, which is done in
the Arithmetical UDA (AUDA, once for all).
Again, if you accept the point (even have discovered it) please tell
us if you agree with the step 4, and then 5 and 6. And 7.
Bruno
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.
