Re: Autonomy?
On 28 Jun 2012, at 18:16, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: comp allows self-duplication. That is the key point. OK. If you really had complete information then you could make 2 predictions: 1) I Bruno Marchal will write in my diary I Bruno Marchal am now in Washington and only Washington .2) I Bruno Marchal will write in my diary I Bruno Marchal am now in Moscow and only Moscow. That's better. But still ignore the first/third person distinction. I don't know what you're talking about. John K Clark, a third party outside observer who also has complete information about the proceedings, makes the exact same predictions that Bruno Marchal, the first person, does about what he will write in his diary. And events will prove that both are correct. Both predictions will turn out to be 100% correct; Not from the first person point of view, I don't know what you're talking about. The first person or second person or third person or the 99'th person can all be shown the entries from both diaries proving that the predictions made by Bruno Marchal and John K Clark were indeed 100% correct about what Bruno Marchal will write. You said yourself that the first person cannot be defined. How could we verify that prediction? Except by feeling to be one of the W and M reconstituted person. And from their points of viex, the prediction of being in both place is simply refuted. the question was bearing on I, not BrunoMarchal, which refers to a third person description. [...] You don't need to define it [I] to get the point that the proba on the localisation on the future sense of self is 1/2. So you can't define I or even give a example of I that remains true for more than a second, Actually I can define enough good approximation of it, and have done that in two ways (with the personal diary/memory content in UDA, and with Theaetetus' trick in AUDA). and you believe as I do that you are free to add subtract multiply and divide I by any arbitrary integer; and yet you still think assigning a probability to such a vague constantly shifting uncountable specter means something so concrete you can give it a probability that means something. I don't. But if you use comp you can predict that about all 2^n resulting persons in an iterated self-duplication will agree with me. You say the probability of something to do with the non-defined ephemeral thing called I is 1/2, There is nothing less ephemeral than I. You ignore an important data in the discussion: our continuous experience of identity. The duplication experience does not change it, and that is a simple consequence of comp. Like in Everett, the observer does not feel the split. but to me the meaning would be just as great (or as little) if you had assigned a negative probability to it of -1/2, or a imaginary probability of 1/2i; I have no idea what to do with any of these probability figures including yours of 1/2, I don't see how I could make use of any of them in any way. Just look at the step 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and then AUDA, and you can understand that the indeterminacy is absolutely fundamental. It explains the existence of the realm where the physical laws comes from. You ignore again the 1-3 distinction that I made precise. I don't know what you're talking about. You admit you can't define I and so although both the Washington and Moscow man use the word I without hesitation when referring to themselves you can't know if one or both or neither really deserves to have that title, They deserve that title because we have already agree that I survive in a successful teleportation. I just cannot be sure where I will feel if there is a duplication. and yet you still assign a probability of 1/2 to something that is supposed to have something to do with I, although it's unclear exactly what. If you are willing to believe that the two copies have survived, we don't need a definition of I, other than what we attribute to others when we say he is conscious. In fact I is conceptually hard to define, but very easy to grasp. It has this in common with consciousness. That sure does not sound very precise to me! You invoke an unecessary, for the reasoning, notion of I. The point is simply that you cannot predict in advance where you will feel to be after the duplication experience. The duplication thought experience has been invented for bypassing the personal identity problem. You have a machine with some button, and you are asked to make a prediction on the immediate personal outcome of a simple experiment. In step seven, you are just throwing a pen, and ask to predict what you will be be observing, in case a UD is run in the universe. I have no clue of what you don't understand, except that you sill confuse 1 and 3 views. Bruno
Re: truth
On 28 Jun 2012, at 22:18, Brian Tenneson wrote: What I meant is an omnipotent being being able to manipulate what is actually, absolutely true (so in a parallel 2+2 might actually be 17). Not manipulate the perception of truth. You can just define a new addition + by the rule x + y = the usual sum of x and y added to 15 with 15 being the usual (s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0))). But again, this does not make 1+1=2 relative. It is just a change of the definition. It means we are not talking about 1, + and 17. If you believe that a God can change the truth value of 1+1=2, with their standard meaning, then such a God is inconsistent with elementary arithmetic, meaning that it does not exist. I am not sure what that someone would even mean when saying that 1+1=17, with their standard meaning. 1+1 ≠ 17 in *all* interpretations of the elementary axioms of arithmetic. Bruno On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/28/2012 1:06 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: What I was wondering, and I know this is ill-formed, is if in different parallels, different things are absolutely true. Things like 2+2=17. It may be completely impractical to imagine such parallels since there is presumably zero overlap and no means of travel to there. The basic premise is that an omnipotent being has the ability to fool computers into thinking various things are true. It doesn't take an omnipotent being to do that - unless you think Rush Limbaugh is omnipotent. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: truth
Brent, thanks for the appreciation! My point was simply that anybody's 'truth' is conditioned. We have no (approvable?) authority for an ABSOLUTE truth. Whatever WE accept is human. What is Mother Nature accepting? John M On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/28/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent: I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain peasant logic, when 1 and 1 make 11, nothing more. So Bruno's absolute truth may have even more relatives. John Or less facetiously, (The father of Kirsten)+(The father of Gennifer)=(One, me) and (one raindrop)+(one raindrop)=(one raindrop). So whether successor(x)=(x+1) depends on the applicability of arithmetic to your model. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Autonomy?
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I explains why people think, I could have done otherwise. Regardless of what they think the irrefutable fact remains that they did NOT do otherwise, and they did not do otherwise for a reason or they did not. They could, due to random events in their brain/environment, but causal efficacy of those random events (e.g. choosing Everest vs Matterhorn) is narrowly constrained by who they are. That's basically what I said, you are what you are for a reason, your genes; in this particular case the risk taking gene. So wanting to climb a mountain was deterministic, but picking one mountain over another was random. The free will noise does not enter the picture. So even though their choice is 'random' it still may satisfy the social/legal concept of their responsibility. I think people are ALWAYS responsible for their actions unless they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the the circumstances of the crime were so unusual that he's very unlikely to repeat it or serve as a deterrent for others. As for the law, it says some people are responsible and some are not with no rhyme or reason for putting some people in one group and some in another, after going through a astronomically complex process the end result is that the law chooses at random who to punish. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: truth
On 29 Jun 2012, at 16:21, John Mikes wrote: Brent, thanks for the appreciation! My point was simply that anybody's 'truth' is conditioned. We have no (approvable?) authority for an ABSOLUTE truth. Whatever WE accept is human. Is that an absolute truth? In my humble opinion, WE = human seems to me quite relative. When I listen to the jumping spiders or the Löbian machines, most seems to disagree. Bruno We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience. (de Chardin). What is Mother Nature accepting? John M On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/28/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent: I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain peasant logic, when 1 and 1 make 11, nothing more. So Bruno's absolute truth may have even more relatives. John Or less facetiously, (The father of Kirsten)+(The father of Gennifer)=(One, me) and (one raindrop)+(one raindrop)=(one raindrop). So whether successor(x)=(x+1) depends on the applicability of arithmetic to your model. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: what is mechanism?
On 11.04.2012 11:11 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 10 Apr 2012, at 21:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... Hence if you know something in Internet or in the written form, I would appreciate your advice. The best about 20 pages, not too little, and not to much. OK I found the paper by Turing: http://www.thocp.net/biographies/papers/turing_oncomputablenumbers_1936.pdf Of course, the language is old, and we prefer to talk today in term of functions instead of real numbers. You can try to read it. I will search other information, but there are many, and of different type, and most still blinded by the aristotelian preconception. So it is hard to find a paper which would satisfy me. But you can get the intuition with Turing's paper I think. Bruno, I have finally come to mechanism. Thank you for your suggestion. I have browsed Turing's paper. Do I understand correctly, that mechanism is something that could be implemented by some Turing's machine? Do you some paper about it that does not have equations but that discusses this term philosophically? Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Autonomy?
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You said yourself that the first person cannot be defined. How could we verify that prediction? Except by feeling to be one of the W and M reconstituted person. And from their points of viex, the prediction of being in both place is simply refuted. Refuted?? As I said before if you really had complete information then you could make 2 predictions: 1) I Bruno Marchal will write in my diary I Bruno Marchal am now in Washington and only Washington. 2) I Bruno Marchal will write in my diary I Bruno Marchal am now in Moscow and only Moscow. Afterwards both diaries can be shown to anyone who is interested proving that there was no indeterminacy and the prediction is confirmed to be completely correct. Things become paradoxical only if you make the assumption that there can only be one Bruno Marchal, therefore the assumption must be untrue. You have a machine with some button, and you are asked to make a prediction on the immediate personal outcome of a simple experiment. Right, and the prediction is easy to make and it is perfect. you sill confuse 1 and 3 views. You keep repeating that over and over like a mantra, but there is a possibility it is you that is confused. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: truth
Bruno asked: . Is that an absolute truth? By no means. It is a word-flower, a semantic hint, something in MY agnosticism and I feel like a semantic messenger only. I accept better expressions. (Except for absolute truth - ha ha). And Teilhard was a great master of words. John M On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Jun 2012, at 16:21, John Mikes wrote: Brent, thanks for the appreciation! My point was simply that anybody's 'truth' is conditioned. We have no (approvable?) authority for an ABSOLUTE truth. Whatever WE accept is human. Is that an absolute truth? In my humble opinion, WE = human seems to me quite relative. When I listen to the jumping spiders or the Löbian machines, most seems to disagree. Bruno *We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.* (de Chardin). What is Mother Nature accepting? John M On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/28/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent: I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in binary, just in plain peasant logic, when 1 and 1 make 11, nothing more. So Bruno's absolute truth may have even more relatives. John Or less facetiously, (The father of Kirsten)+(The father of Gennifer)=(One, me) and (one raindrop)+(one raindrop)=(one raindrop). So whether successor(x)=(x+1) depends on the applicability of arithmetic to your model. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
