On 15 Apr 2015, at 09:58, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-15 9:35 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
On 15 Apr 2015, at 00:15, John Clark wrote:
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.
Unfortunately, prediction and probabilities concerns the future.
> 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
No, we agree on the personal identity before asking the prediction
question. The duplication experiement is not designed to illuminate
the nature of personal identity, which is made clear beforehand,
with the 1p and 3p diaries.
You often says this, and never reply to the fact that this has been
debunked.
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.
You say that you accept the notion of first person, but what telmo
meant is that you stop using it in the WM-prediction, where you
agree that you will be in the two places in the 3p view, with unique
1p, so the P = 1/2 is just obvious. It is not deep: to this why it
will be deep, you need to move on step 4, step 5, etc.
>> 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.
Yes, but that is the H-man too, with the 3-1 view. Nothing is
ambiguous, once we understand and APPLY the 1/3 distinction. That is
what you never seem to do.
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
Oh, so you agree with the indeterminacy.
Bruno, I can go back as far as 2008 for such discussions with John
Clark in my gmail archives about step 3... it's useless to continue
to answer him (at least on your work, and surely on anything else),
he will never accept anything, and will never go beyond that point,
he doesn't want to have a genuine discussion... it will go back in
circle again, he will mock your acronyms, he will say, he doesn't
know what step 1,2 are, he will do biased comparisons, he will say
it's stupid, or false or stupid again etc etc etc... you give him
hours of your live that he doesn't deserve...
You are right, but if I don't answer he will pretend to have win the
debate. Then I think it deserves some seconds, which is the time
needed to debunk his prose.
That he will repeat himself will just help people to see he has no
point. Don't worry, it takes me only a few seconds, as he has not
modify his strategy since ... the beginning.
At least, he does this publicly, and he illustrates how low can be the
opponent. He is perfect in the role of the dumb guy. He illustrates
well the theory of intelligence I gave, also, and it illustrates well
the non scientific character of some non-agnostic atheists (the
believer in God = Matter, with god in the greek original sense of the
transcendental truth we search).
It might seems weird, but John does a good job for me.
It reminds me, and illustrates to the others, how far you need to go
in the irrational to avoid the consequence of computationalism. Of
course, it would be nicer if he could avoid the simple insults and ad
hominem remarks, but then its irrational point would probably seems
too much transparent, so he needs to add some shoulder shrugging and
personal attack, but again I prefer them in front of me than behind my
back.
Bruno
Quentin
It is new, I'm afraid. Unless you say that you die in the
duplication process, or that there is telepathy between the copies,
the personal, 1-views, cannot be determined, and this without any
non determinism in the 3p view, and without invoking QM. Just look
at the content of the diary of each copy. So it is different from
the classical coin, and from the quantum coin. It invokes self-
duplication, which was new too at the time I developed this (btw).
But the "newness" is not the topic. The real question now is: does
that indeterminacy change, or not, if we introduce a delay in Moscow
(say) reconstitution?
Please answer this, or justify why you don't answer, given that you
agree with the indeterminacy.
Bruno
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-
l...@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.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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.
