On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> >> An >> abstract >> universal Turing machine can compute >> exactly >> diddly squat >> . A physical >> universal Turing machine >> on the other hand >> can compute >> anything capable of being computed. >> > > > > In your theory. No > problem > True. > > > but it is incompatible with computationalism. > Bullshit. C omputationalism says intelligent behavior is caused by computations , and I'm saying the same thing. > > >>> >> >>> Once you accept Yes-doctor, >> >> > >> >> But I don't accept it unless the Turing Machine simulating me is >> PHYSICAL. > > > > the whole point is that is enough for getting the non physical > immaterialist consequences. > T he whole point of what? >> >> If the person is duplicated then the question "what will *YOU* see next?"is >> not well formed and it is equivalent to "what will flobkneequicks see >> next?"; neither question has an answer. > > > > > All your copies disagree. > All copies will disagree about what the answer turned out to be, and none of them would be right and none of them would be wrong because the question was not well formed. It takes more than a question mark to turn gibberish into a question. > > If it was ill-formed, then the question what spin will you get would be > ill-formed too in QM, and in physics in general. > That is untrue because, unlike the case with the people duplicating machine stuff, with QM after the experiment is over everybody in the observable universe agrees about what the answer turned out to be. So although right now I don't know the answer to the question "will* I* see that atom decay in the next 30 seconds?" it is a perfectly well formed question and 30 seconds from now both I and everybody in the observable universe will agree on what the answer turned out to be. But with the duplicating machine stuff NOBODY will EVER agree on what the answer to the question "what city will *YOU* see in 30 seconds?" turned out to be because in 30 seconds the pronoun will have no unique agreed on referent, so it's not a question, it's just gibberish. >> >> The question "what will John Clark see next?" has an answer but Bruno >> absolutely insists on using the personal pronoun, hasn't anyone wondered >> why Bruno is so adamant about doing so? It's because personal pronouns are >> a convenient place to hide the gaping holes in Bruno's argument. > > > > > I gave you version without pronoun, > BULLSHIT. Personal pronouns are the lifeblood of Bruno Marchal 's theory and would die a quick death without it. > > You illustrate very well that people who call themselves non-religious > are more dogmatic on their beliefs than religious educated people > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
