On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: > I predict that I will win 1 million dollar by tomorrow. I know my > prediction is correct because this will happen in one of the branches of > the multiverse. Do you agree with this statement? >
No I do not agree because matter duplicating machines do not exist yet so if I check tomorrow the laws of physics will allow me to find only one chunk of matter that fits the description of Mr. I (that is a chunk of matter that behaves in a Telmomenezesian way), and that particular chunk of matter does not appear to have a million dollars. However if the prediction was "tomorrow Telmo Menezes will win a million dollars" then I would agree, provided of course that the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true. > You are trying to play a game that is absurd, which is to deny the first > person view. > That is ridiculous, only a fool would deny the first person view and John Clark is not a fool. Mr.I can always look to the past and see one unique linear sequence of Mr.I's leading up to him, and Mr. I can remember being every one of them. But things are very different looking to the future, nothing is unique and far from being linear things could hardly be more parallel with a astronomical and possibly infinite number of branching, and Mr. I can't remember being any of them. And that is why the sense of first person identity has nothing to do with our expectations of the future but is only a function of our memories of the past. > You use your crusade against pronouns > If Telmo Menezes thinks that any objection in the use of personal pronouns in thought experiments designed to illuminate the fundamental nature of personal identity is absurd then call John Clark's bluff and simply stop using them; then if Telmo Menezes can still express ideas on this subject clearly and without circularity it would prove that John Clark's concern that people who used such pronouns were implicitly stating what they were trying to prove were indeed absurd. >> Monty Hall knows that when the Helsinki Man in the sealed box in Moscow >> opens the door and sees Moscow the Moscow Man will be born from the ashes >> of the Helsinki Man, >> > > >The Helsinki Man in the sealed box in Moscow knows that too. He was fully > informed of the protocol of the experiment. > OK but it doesn't matter if he knows the protocol of the experiment or not, regardless of where he is until The Helsinki Man sees Moscow or Moscow the Helsinki Man will remain The Helsinki Man. So who will become the Moscow Man? The one who sees Moscow will become the Moscow Man. Oh well, the good thing about tautologies is that they're always true. > >>> Verb tenses also become problematic if you introduce time machines. >>> >> >> >> Douglas Adams had something to say about this in The Hitchhikers Guide >> to the Galaxy: >> > > > Yes, I love it too. Doesn't it worry you a bit that your grammatical > argument is so similar to one found in an absurdist work of fiction? > No because if time machines actually existed then it wouldn't be absurd at all, the English language really would need a major overhaul in the way it uses verb tenses. And if matter duplicating machines existed the English language really would need a major overhaul about the way it uses personal pronouns. The only difference is that if the laws of physics are what we think they are then time machines are NOT possible, but if the laws of physics are what we think they are then matter duplicating machines ARE possible. > Show me how to do it. Describe quantum uncertainty according to the MWI >> without personal pronouns. I know you will be able to do it because: >> a) you like the MWI >> b) you hate personal pronouns >> > > CASE #1 > > Telmo Menezes shoots one photon at 2 slits with a photographic plate > behind the slits. As the photon approaches the slits the entire universe > splits into 2 with the photon going through the left slit in one universe > and the right slit in the other universe. Being part of the universe Telmo > Menezes splits too although neither of the Telmos knows which slit the > photon went through. When the photons hit the photographic plate the photon > no longer exists in either universe so the universes are identical again > and the universes merge back together. When Telmo Menezes develops the > plate the beginnings of a interference pattern is seen which is consistent > with a single photon going through both slits. > > CASE #2 >> The experiment is the same except that this time there is a sensor next >> to each slit so that Telmo Menezes known what slit the photon went through. >> As the photon approaches the slits the universe splits in two and Mr.Telmo >> Menezes Left Slit sees the photon go through the left slit and Mr.Telmo >> Menezes Right Slit sees the photon go through the right slit. When the >> photons hit the photographic plate the photons no longer exist in either >> universe but the 2 universes are still not identical because Mr.Telmo >> Menezes Left Slit has a different physical structure in Mr.Telmo Menezes >> Left Slit's brain (and thus a different memory) than Mr.Telmo Menezes Right >> Slit. So the two universes remain separate. When Mr.Telmo Menezes Left Slit >> develops the photographic plate a spot is found directly behind the left >> slit which is consistent with the photon going through the left slit only, >> and when Mr.Telmo Menezes Right Slit develops the photographic plate a spot >> is found directly behind the right slit which is consistent with the photon >> going through the right slit only. >> And no damn pronouns. > > > And no damn uncertainty Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing that Bruno had discovered something new under the sun, a new sort of uncertainty John K Clark > 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.
