On 28 Mar 2015, at 23:41, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please explain then logically how it's different from the simple
duplication experiment
No, there would be no point. I've already explained my reasoning
over and over and over again and your rebuttal is always exactly the
same, "Liar Clark".
>> If you send a billion photons through 2 slits and onto a
photographic plate and you do NOT know which slit any of the photons
went through what is the probability you will see a interference
pattern when you develop that plate? And if you send a billion
photons through 2 slits and onto a photographic plate and you DO
know which slit all the the photons went through what is the
probability you will see a interference pattern when you develop
that plate? The correct answers are 100% and 0% respectively.
Everett and his many Worlds Interpretation has no difficulty
explaining why this is the case, but Bruno's copying machine world
is not nearly as rich and has no explanation.
>That's not the point of the duplication thought experiment, and
that thought experiment in no way is meant to explain that.
Then the duplication thought experiment is in no way equivalent to
the Many Worlds Interpretation
Exact. No one claimed the contrary.
and has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics, so I can reject one
without rejecting the other and remain consistent.
No, you can't. because Quentin, but also me, Jason Resch and others,
have explained with all details that *your* argument against step 3
would work also against Everett view of QM. Si it is a mystery why you
don't do the error in Everett, but do it in step 3.
usually, the first people mocking step 3 (the FPI) in my life were
people not aware of Everett, or people already opposed to Everett. I
think you are the first person who accept Everett and reject the
computationalist indeterminacy. It is weird, as the FPI is
conceptually simpler than the QM formalism.
> he lied repeteadly... just one week ago about Bruno being affraid
of machine.
There is no logical reason why somebody would say that the Turing
Test doesn't even work for intelligent, so the reason must be
emotional.
You keep repeating recently this new lie, which contradicts at the
start the theory i work on since ever: computationalism.
Your technic is easy: you forget that I distinguish competence and
intelligence, and that I use the term "intelligence" is the sense used
by theologians and mystics. It is closer to consciousness, which also
cannot be tested in any way. I am not talking in the "FAPP" mode(*),
but in the theoretical mode.
FAPP = For All Practical Purpose. Famous acronyms due to John Bell (I
think).
If you have a hypothesis other than fear of machines to explain this
odd behavior of a logician I'd love to hear it.
If it is your hypothesis, you should say so. And then read any post of
me to see it is plainly ridiculous.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
