On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 6:17 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> *you are right, computation needs a notion of change, but not of physical > change, which emerge from the notion of relative change already definable > in arithmetic.* > So you've abandoned the idea mathematics is eternal and universal. Arithmetic will be different an hour from now and Arithmetic in Washington is not the same as Arithmetic in Moscow. >>You can't have a block-view of reality or of anything else without a >> block, and time is one of the dimensions of that block, and time is the one >> and only reason the geometry of that block is Non-Euclidean. > > > *>In your religion. * > What are you talking about? I've said nothing controversial, its been known for a century the block universe is Non-Euclidean because, due to the time dimension, the Pythagorean theorem is different in Minkowski space than it is in Euclidean geometry. If X is the spatial distance between 2 events for an observer and T is the time it takes light to cover that distance for that same observer and c is the speed of light then the invariant spacetime distance S between events can be found with the formula S^2= (cT)^2 -X^2. T and X will be different for different observers but S will be the same for ANY observer. Notice the minus sign in there, Euclid and Pythagoras said it should be a plus and that's why it's Non-Euclidean. *>No problem with your theory, but it contradict your belief > in computationalism.* > I know what I mean by "computationalism", intelligent behavior can be produced by computations, but I can't comment on the above because like "The Helsinki man" I don't know what you mean by computationalism. > >>And I predicted that would happen long before the experiment started. > > > *>That implies the first person indeterminacy.* > So something is indeterminate if it is predictable? Now I don't know what you mean by "indeterminate" either. > >>> *Wat I request is that you tell me what the H-guy can expect to > live* > >>And what I request of you > > >*You avoid answering.* > True. I can't answer until I know what the question is, and I won't know that until you tell me exactly what you mean by "the H-guy". Remember people duplicating machines are involved so you must be far more precise than you are in normal everyday life. >>Just answer the following question: "After the experiment is completed >> and the 1 H-guy became 2 H-guys what 1 and only 1 city did the H-guy end up >> in?” > > > *>That is like building the confusion between first and third person view, > to makes the question not answerable.* > If the question is not answerable then I'm not the one who is confused. It's your idiotic "question" not mine! > >> If you can't answer that then it was not a experiment > > > *>No. It means that the H-guy (if he survives, which is the case assuming > computationalism) cannot predict the particular outcome he will feel to > live. * > Tell me exactly what the referent to the personal pronoun "he" is in the above is and I will tell you if I agree with your statement or not. > *We have agreed since day one what we mean by the H-guy.* > Refresh my memory then, what do you mean by "the H-guy"? This is important because it not only involves what the prediction is about but also who is supposed to make the prediction. Are they the same people? >>Seeing Moscow is the one and only reason the Helsinki man became the >> Moscow man. So why did I see Moscow? Because I'm the Moscow man. Why am >> I the Moscow man? Because I saw Moscow. > > > >*Trivially. * > Yep, it would be hard to find anything more trivial, but its your thought experiment not mine. >>Unable to predict exactly what in Helsinki? > > > *>The unique city that both H-guys will see.* > Who do you want to make the prediction? Both H-guys didn't exist yesterday in Helsinki there was only one. Before anybody can predict anything you need to exist. > *What they will write in the diary.* > Please tell me how that brain dead diary idea you've been pushing for years has any relevance in this matter. >>So which ONE did it turn out to be, Washington OR Moscow? > > > *>For one copy it is W, and he could not have predicted.* > *For the other it is M, and he could not have predicted.* > True, the H man could predict all of this but the W and M men were unable to. And there is a reason for that, it is difficult to make good predictions or even poor ones if you don't exist. > *>The pronouns are not ambiguous.* > *Then prove it!* Just stop using goddamn personal pronouns when discussing this issue. If Bruno knows who the referent is for all the pronouns are as claimed then Bruno should use them. However John predicts this will not happen because Bruno simply cannot express these ideas without copious use of ambiguous personal pronouns. There will likely be proof that John's prediction was correct in Bruno's very next post. >> But even after the "exparament" is over you *STILL* don't know that one >> and only one city name so you have no way of knowing if my prediction was >> correct or not. > > > *>That is why there is an indeterminacy.* > How do you know my prediction about the outcome of the experiment was incorrect if AFTER it's over you STILL don't know the outcome of the experiment? Maybe I got everything exactly right, you have no way of knowing. >>if you know before you start you will learn nothing from an experiment >> what's the point of performing the experiment? > > > > *Yes, that is why the H-guy cannot make a definite prediction.* > How do you know the H-guy didn't make a correct prediction about the "experiment"? I don't know what the H-guy predicted but you admit you don't know how your own "experiment" turned out even long after it was completed, so for all you know the H-guy's prediction, whatever it may have been, could be 100% correct. But we'll never know because you not only don't know what is supposed to be predicted you insist that people that don't yet exist, like the Moscow man and the Washington man, make the prediction. By the way, do you also recommend that scientists in other areas also perform experiments even if they know before they start they will learn nothing from them? Is that the recipe for advancing science? >>If it's false then just look and tell me if the answer turned out to be >> Washington or Moscow. What are you waiting for, let's hear it! > > > >*The prediction is on the first person experience, so* [blah blah blah] > If a real question was asked and if this were a real experiment with a real result you'd just look and give me a real answer, and it would consist of the name of one and only one city . But instead of a one word answer I get a paragraph of bafflegab full of homemade slang, homemade acronyms, and wall to wall personal pronouns with no referent. The reason the answer makes no sense is that no question was asked, it takes more than a question mark to make a question. All good experiments, even thought experiments, must ask a question, and yours didn't. >>I will probably never read step 4 because you will probably never repair >> the ridiculous blunder you made in step 3. > > > >*If there were a blunder, you would show it,* > Amazing. After 5+ years of pointing it out I get this. > >>I'm pretty sure it doesn't refer to anybody who remembers being the >> Helsinki Man > > > *>Of course it does.* > Bruno, that's my definition but think long and hard before you agree with it because if you still agree with it in your next post I give you fair warning my next question to you will be "How many cities will the Helsinki man see?". I don't think you're going to stick with that simple elegant definition, I think you're going to sneak a truck full bafflegab and peepee into it. Prove me wrong. > >>but other than that I have no idea what one and only one thing you mean >> by "he”, > > > >Then you make both H-guy into zombie. > The H-guy wasn't a zombie but yesterday back in Helsinki the Washington man and the Moscow man were the equivalent of zombies because yesterday THEY DID NOT EXIST. The H man is not the W or M man but the H man is a proper subset of both the H man and the W man. Yesterday nobody in Helsinki had any memory of being in Moscow or Washington so yesterday the M and W men didn't exist, and yet you want them to make predictions; its true they can't do so but that doesn't indicate there is something special about prediction or consciousness because yesterday the W and M men couldn't do anything else either. > *by attacking the most easy part, even accepted by all my opponents* Perhaps we've found something we can agree on, I have my doubts but if the above is true then most of your opponents must be really really dumb. 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.
