@ Pierz >> If he refuses to > acknowledge MWI as a valid account due to his pronoun concerns, then > fine, maybe he should publish a refutation of Everett to that > effect.
but isn't John's point that pro-nouns do not cause much trouble when duplicates end up in separate universes? Thats a fair point right? So, Im not sure he feels his concerns are relevent to Everett. Ive never seen Bruno respond adequately to that point. All this 'troll' baiting reminds me of when I first came into contact with step 3. Bruno and a bunch of others were mocking John for saying that 1 person could experience being in moscow and washington at the same time. I thought it was odd that someone like John would think that, so I looked up what he had actually written and lo and behold Bruno and co. were just lying. lying out of their lazy fat academic arses! lol. He'ld said nothing of the sort. So you have to be careful to read what John says rather than rely what Bruno says John says. The two can be very different. Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:59:25 -0700 From: pier...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:06:31 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Aug 2015, at 02:39, Pierz wrote: > Mein Gott, this argument reminds me of the fire in Siberia that > started burning in the Holocene and is still going. Why do you keep > taking the troll bait Bruno? Because it is not under my back, and I want to make clear that the person who have a problem with this are troll. > JC is a physicist so I presume he understands Everett. Ergo, he > understands, in principle, first person indeterminacy. See the attempt by Quentin and others to make John C realizing this, but he answers by the same hand-waving method, confirming (that's the goal of answering) that he is a troll. > He just loves tormenting you. Possible. But then why? Jealousy? Inability to say "I was wrong"? I try to understand such "bad faith" as this might make the difference between coming back to the scientific attitude in theology next century or next millennium. My goal is harm reduction, and the sooner we can be serious on this, the less useless suffering for humans. > You can ask the simple question: if the quantum state evolves > deterministically where does randomness come from according to MWI? > I'd like to hear JC's answer to that. If he says it's due to > multiple versions of the observer ending up in different branches of > the multiverse, he's shown he understands. If he refuses to > acknowledge MWI as a valid account due to his pronoun concerns, then > fine, maybe he should publish a refutation of Everett to that > effect. I'm sure the physics world would be fascinated to learn of > its error. John Clark has given already both answers, and has oscillate between accepting the FPI o-and rejecting it. When he accepts it, he insist it is trivial and does not deserve the Nobel Prize (like if that was on the table!), but fail to explain why he still does not address the next step in the reasoning. I think that to avoid this, he knows prefer to stick on his 1p3p-difference abstraction of. Keep in mind that I got the 1p-indeterminacy more than 40 years ago, and that I have never had any problem in explaining it to scientist. But then some scientist decided that it was philosophy, and hired some (non-analytical) philosopher who pretended that the FPI does not exist. As I have never been able to met them, I felt frustated (for 40 years) I see, I think. JC is a proxy for the guy who robbed you of your prize, and you're still hoping for a victory of logic over malice. You're still trying to deal with your hurt. In Australia we have a term for what John is doing; it's considered a national pastime: cutting down the tall poppies. Whenever someone sticks their head up above the crowd with a claim to greatness or originality, somebody will try to lop their head off out of jealousy and small-mindedness. John tries to act as if it's all about the logic, but his nastiness and sarcasm give away the underlying emotional motivations of a thwarted embittered person who hasn't achieved the recognition he craves and so feels compelled to cut down anyone who dares to stand out with a claim for attention. so I still try to see where is the problem: and JC helps a lot in showing that the problem is simply its inability, or unwillingness, to take the 1p/3p difference into account in the question and verification. But he has show to grasp the difference, so it is probably just unwillingness. Then the question remains: why such unwillingness? I'm afraid it is just jealousy or something of that type. each post by JC confirms that, and it *might* someday help people to understand how obscurantist people can be on this subject. Then JC, like Jean-Paul Delahaye, makes me think that maybe the FPI does deserve the Nobel Prize after all. If it is that subtle to grasp for grown up, it might be worth to make clearer. After all, all the rest of the work exploit that FPI. Tegmark and Schmidhuber missed it, as Tegmark confirms by "rediscovering it" in his book (as Jason Resch quoted some times ago). So, the FPI is certainly very simple, but the 1p/3p difference is not that simple for some physicists and philosophers (sic), as the way JC and some part of the academical world have illustrated since long. Another problem, is that his post confused people, so we have to answer them for possible new bees. Yes. The western scientific mindset has become so conditioned to think only in terms of 3p, that it is difficult for some people to think any other way. These are the same people who fail to grasp the "hard problem". Now, anyone can ask more interesting question, or discuss other points... It is not difficult to filter the thread if annoyed by the admittedly boring repetition of Clarks last attempt to ridicule the notion. Oh nobody is compelling me to follow the saga! It exasperates me a little when the digest arrives in my email and I see more "bullshit!" from JC, but it's no skin off my nose. Carry on by all means - I expect to see the Siberian fires still burning in 2020! :) It is "holiday". The list is quite, so take this as a little snack, like an attempt to understand the psychology of trolls and harassers, or just skip those posts, and enjoy the sun and the beach :) Bruno > > -- > 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-li...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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. -- 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.
