On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> you have no knowledge of computer science and its history. Computation
> and computability have been discovered by mathematicians and they don't use
> any physical assumptions.
>
That is true,
physical assumptions
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
>>> >>
>>> Sigma_1 complete provability is Turing universal,
>>
>>
> >>
>> But the proof or that can't compute one damn thing!
>>
>> No proof can.
>
> >
> That is false. Sigma_1 provability can compute
On 06 Oct 2015, at 16:23, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> John Clark agrees implicitly with the fact that a computation
is not a physical notion,
No, John Clark does not agree with that.
Then your earlier explanation of what is
On 07 Oct 2015, at 03:58, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> Sigma_1 complete provability is Turing universal,
But the proof or that can't compute one damn thing! No proof
can.
That is false. Sigma_1 provability can
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
> >
> I don’t honestly see the point of this any more.
And yet you still post, therefore I can only conclude that
you enjoy writing posts that have no point.
>
> I recall you saying several eons ago that
2015-10-06 16:23 GMT+02:00 John Clark :
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >
>> John Clark agrees implicitly with the fact that a computation is not a
>> physical notion,
>
>
> No, John Clark does not agree with that.
>
>
>
>> >
>>
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> >>
>> Because John Clark can find no evidence that
>> computation *NOT* done in physics exists, and INTEL can't find any
>> evidence for it either. The only reason John Clark talks about "
>> physical
> On 6 Oct 2015, at 8:34 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Note that here John Clark agrees implicitly with the fact that a computation
> is not a physical notion, because he defines physical computation by a
> computation done in physics. So he lost the point. Unfortunately we
On 06 Oct 2015, at 04:29, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I'm not dogmatic on the subject but I have
grave doubts about the existence of computation in
arithmetic; certainly nobody has ever seen even a hint
of such a
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Sigma_1 complete provability is Turing universal,
>
But the proof or that can't compute one damn thing!
No proof can.
> >
> the problem is that in "computation done physically", what do you mean by
>
On 05 Oct 2015, at 00:52, Kim Jones wrote:
On 1 Oct 2015, at 3:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
When I say "physical computation" and you demand a definition of
that and when I respond with "a computation done with physics" and
you demand a definition of that too then
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> John Clark agrees implicitly with the fact that a computation is not a
> physical notion,
No, John Clark does not agree with that.
> >
> because he defines physical computation by a computation done in physics.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> I'm not dogmatic on the subject but I have
>>
>> grave
>>
>> doubts
>>
>> about
>>
>> the existence of computation in arithmetic; certainly
>>
>> nobody has ever seen
>>
>> even a hint of
>>
>>
On 03 Oct 2015, at 04:25, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal
wr rote
> you seem to doubt that the existence of computation in arithmetic.
Yes, I'm not dogmatic on the subject but I have grave
doubts about the existence of
> On 1 Oct 2015, at 3:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> When I say "physical computation" and you demand a definition of that and
> when I respond with "a computation done with physics" and you demand a
> definition of that too then I believe it is perfectly acceptable for
On 01 Oct 2015, at 22:09, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> When I say "physical computation" and you demand a
definition of that and when I respond with "a computation done with
physics" and you demand a definition of
O
n Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wr rote
> you seem to doubt that the existence of computation in arithmetic.
Yes, I'm not dogmatic on the subject but I have
grave
doubts
about
the existence of computation in arithmetic; certainly
nobody
On 30 Sep 2015, at 19:25, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> And that my friends is exactly why examples are so superior
to definitions, it avoids the absurd "define that word" endless loop
that people always use when they're losing a
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> And that my friends is exactly why examples are so superior to
>> definitions, it avoids the absurd "define that word" endless loop that
>> people always use when they're losing a debate.
>
>
> >
> So by asking example
On 29 Sep 2015, at 23:51, John Clark wrote:
snip
And that my friends is exactly why examples are so superior to
definitions, it avoids the absurd "define that word" endless loop
that people always use when they're losing a debate.
So by asking example when I give a definition, and asking
On 28 Sep 2015, at 18:21, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> If you prove the existence of something in something
else, you have that something,
>> Euclid proved 2500 years ago that there are infinitely
many primes, so if what you
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
>> >>
>>
>> Now you equate existence with constructive existence,
>>
>
> >>
> What the hell? You're the one that is equating those two things not me!
> I don't want you to answer the question "does the 423rd prime
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
>> >>
>>
>> If you prove the existence of something in something else, you have that
>> something,
>>
>
>
> >>
> Euclid proved 2500 years ago that there are infinitely many primes, so if
> what you say above is true you
On 25 Sep 2015, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> I don't want proof of computations, I want
computations!
> If you prove the existence of something in something else,
you have that something,
Euclid
On 24 Sep 2015, at 01:26, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> the existence of particular computations and emulations of
computations by other computations can be proved already in Robinson
Arithmetic.
I don't want proof of computations,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> the existence of particular computations and emulations of computations by
> other computations can be proved already in Robinson Arithmetic.
>
I don't want proof of computations, I want computations!
>
> There is a
On 21 Sep 2015, at 02:49, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Yes, arithmetic can simulates a Turing machine,
Arithmetic can't simulate anything unless it has access to
something physical like a biological brain or a electronic
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Yes, arithmetic can simulates a Turing machine,
>
Arithmetic can't simulate anything unless it has access to something
physical like a biological brain or a electronic microprocessor.
> >
> But a primary physical
On 20 Sep 2015, at 03:17, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 , Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Theorems don't make calculations, physical microprocessor
chips do.
> Physical computer are implementation, in the math sense, of
turing universality by physical devices.
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 , Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >>
>> Theorems don't make calculations, physical microprocessor chips do.
>
>
> >
> Physical computer are implementation, in the math sense, of turing
> universality by physical devices.
>
What makes you so certain that
On 10 Sep 2015, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I will answer your next post if it contains something new.
Then I guess it contained something new.
>>> that can be emulated in arithmetic as all
computations can be emulated
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I will answer your next post if it contains something new.
Then I guess it contained something new.
> >
>> >>
>>
>> that can be emulated in arithmetic as all computations can be emulated
>>
>
>
> >>
> Bullshit.
>
On 07 Sep 2015, at 19:11, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> that can be emulated in arithmetic as all computations can be
emulated
Bullshit.
No, it is a theorem in computer science. Keep in mind that computer
(universal machine),
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> that can be emulated in arithmetic as all computations can be emulated
>
Bullshit.
> >
>> >>
>>
>> The fact that computations exist in arithmetic is a trivial theorem.
>>
>
>
> >>
> You keep saying that, and yet
On 04 Sep 2015, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> If arithmetic is more fundamental than physics as you say
then we should be able to write a program that would get the
computer wet, and yet we can't and your
On 03 Sep 2015, at 18:56, John Clark wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Just one remark: we cannot make a piece of matter wet in
arithmetic
I know, but why not? If arithmetic is more fundamental than
physics as you say then we should be able to write a program that
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >>
>> If arithmetic is more fundamental than physics as you say then we should
>> be able to write a program that would get the computer wet, and yet we
>> can't and your theory can not give an adequate explanation
can't avoid modal logic. But this does not refute the FPI, if that is
what you were trying to do.
Bruno
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:40:16 +0200
On 31 Aug 2015, at 23:58, John Cl
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> Just one remark: we cannot make a piece of matter wet in arithmetic
>
I know, but why not? If arithmetic is more fundamental than physics as you
say then we should be able to write a program that would get the computer
wet, and yet we can't and
On 31 Aug 2015, at 23:58, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>>Bruno Marchal was alluding on how you predict your
subjective experience when you do an experience in physics
where "you" has been duplicated and thus making
JC-0-'you' is not JC-1-'you',
both are JC-H-'you'. In otherwords, because JC-0 and JC-1's experiences are
exclusive relative to one another, they are not exclusive relative to JC-H.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
Date: Wed, 2
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> Bruno Marcha
>> l
>> was alluding on how you predict your subjective experience when you do an
>> experience in physics
>>
>> where "you" has been duplicated and thus making that personal pronoun
>>
On 30 Aug 2015, at 19:04, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> I saw several question marks in the last post but I saw
no questions. Ask me any question and I'll give you an answer or say
I don't know, but I can't respond to
On 29 Aug 2015, at 18:59, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You don't even quote the entire sentence.
You mean the one where you said I will no more comment
?
Yes.
You don't even quote and answer any of the
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I saw several question marks in the last post but I saw no questions.
Ask me any question and I'll give you an answer or say I don't know, but I
can't respond to gibberish.
I was alluding on how you predict
On 28 Aug 2015, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
All here is pure rhetorical tricks which have already been
debunked many times, by many people.
Bullshit.
Sure.
I will no more comment
Coward.
You don't even quote
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You don't even quote the entire sentence.
You mean the one where you said
I will no more comment
?
You don't even quote and answer any of the question asked in any of the
last post.
I saw several
John,
All here is pure rhetorical tricks which have already been debunked
many times, by many people.
I will no more comment those ad hominem spurious trolling posts.
Bruno
On 21 Aug 2015, at 19:26, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
All here is pure rhetorical tricks which have already been debunked many
times, by many people.
Bullshit.
I will no more comment
Coward.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On 20 Aug 2015, at 21:21, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
the only way John Clark knows how to interpret
What does happen is 3p, and the question is about the 1p is that
the 1p does not happen after duplication in which
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Nobody will have two 1p from an 1p pov.
If Ed remains somebody even after Ed is duplicated then somebody will have
two 1p from a 1p pov. However John Clark is reluctant to say what will
happen to you until Bruno
On 18 Aug 2015, at 23:19, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
What does happen is 3p, and the question is about the
1p.
What! So whatever really does happen to Bruno Marchal
after the duplication there will be no 1p?
Why would I ask
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
What does happen is 3p, and the question is about the 1p.
What! So whatever really does happen to Bruno Marchal
after the duplication there will be no 1p?
Why would I ask you to predict the 1p if there were
On 17 Aug 2015, at 18:31, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
First of all what somebody expects to happen has no bearing
on this matter,only what does happen is important .
NOT AT ALL.
Bruno Marchal expects one thing to happen, John
On 16 Aug 2015, at 22:24, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You again! John Clark expects that Bruno Marchal
will continue to use words in the proof that implicitly assumes
the very thing it's trying to prove.
Are
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
First of all what somebody expects to happen has no bearing on this
matter,only what does happen is important .
NOT AT ALL.
Bruno Marchal
expects one thing to happen, John Clark expects another thing to happen
and Ed
, but avoid *all* your
rhetorical tricks, as they have all been debunked, by a majority of
people participating in this list.
From now on, I will answer only *arguments*, and put the post with
rhetorical maneuvers in the trash.
Bruno
1P/3P CONFUSION again and again and again
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You again! John Clark expects that Bruno Marchal
will continue to use words in the proof that implicitly assumes the
very thing it's trying to prove.
Are you joking or what?
I'm not joking so I
trying to prove.
1P/3P CONFUSION again and again and again ...
Not one person on planet Earth is or has ever been confused by the
difference between 1p and 3p, but EVERYBODY on planet Earth (especially
Bruno Marchal
)
is confused about what the hell
1-1p and the 3-1p
is supposed
On 13 Aug 2015, at 22:28, John Clark wrote:
People can believe all sorts of foolish things, but if a person
enters a person duplicating machine that person will still have a
unique past but will NOT have a unique future. Yes that is odd, but
odd things happen when a person is
there has been one, except by
believing the protocol.
1P/3P CONFUSION again and again and again ...
Yes that seems unusual but it's not illogical and it's only
unusual because we haven't seen it yet , and we haven't seen it yet
for technological reasons and not for scientific, logical
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
if that definition of you is used then the question What one and
only one city did you end up seeing? has no answer because it is not a
question at all, it is just a sequence of ASCII characters the last of
which
On 14 Aug 2015, at 12:38 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 August 2015 at 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
if that definition of you is used then the question What one and
only
On 14 August 2015 at 12:45, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 14 Aug 2015, at 12:38 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 14 August 2015 at 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 August 2015 at 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
if that definition of you is used then the question What one and
only one city did you end up seeing? has no answer because it is not a
question at
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
after the door is opened there is no such thing as *the* 1-view.
I have explained why this is directly refuted by all copies.
So is *THE* 1-view a view of Moscow or of Washington?
a natural
On Saturday, August 8, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','johnkcl...@gmail.com'); wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 smitra smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
You can just define personal identity as a single observer moment, which
includes any memories of the outcomes of
On 12 Aug 2015, at 02:46, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Oh no, now we have the two 3-1 p view!
We have this since the beginning.
That explains your profound confusion.
You can say that both copies have the 1-view of
On 11 Aug 2015, at 01:43, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
there will be only one 1-view from any of the two 3-1 p view
Oh no, now we have the two 3-1 p view!
We have this since the beginning.
3-JC is refers to the
So here's an excerpt from this paper: h
ttp://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9609006v1.pdf, which was recently linked in
response to a question I asked about MWI. This seems to echo *exactly* your
concerns about identity/pronouns in the duplication experiment, and to
resolve them, even though this
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Oh no, now we have the two 3-1 p view
!
We have this since the beginning.
That explains your profound confusion.
You can say that both copies have the 1-view of the H-guy,
Regardless of how many bodies
On 09 Aug 2015, at 22:53, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
would be silly to ask the amoeba before the division if
*you* will swim to the left or to the right after the division,
almost as silly as asking which of the 2 amoebas was THE one
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
there will be only one 1-view from any of the two 3-1 p view
Oh no, now we have
the two 3-1 p view
!
3-JC is refers to the bodies which in this case are in the two cities.
OK, or in non-peepee notation the
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
would be silly to ask the amoeba before the division if **you** will
swim to the left or to the right after the division, almost as silly as
asking which of the 2 amoebas was *THE* one true original amoeba that
had *THE* 1p
On 09 Aug 2015, at 01:00, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
If you're an amoeba and you divide, there are now two amoebas
who remember having been you (if amoebas had memories).
Yes, and it would be silly to ask the amoeba before the division
if
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 5:09:49 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
My point isn't that MWI is true. My point is you understand it and how it
leads to the appearance of indeterminacy in a completely
On 07 Aug 2015, at 21:09, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
My point isn't that MWI is true. My point is you understand
it and how it leads to the appearance of indeterminacy in a
completely determined system. Indeterminacy is a 1-p
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
If you're an amoeba and you divide, there are now two amoebas who remember
having been you (if amoebas had memories).
Yes, and it would be silly to ask the amoeba before the division if **you**
will swim to the left or to the right
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 smitra smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
You can just define personal identity as a single observer moment, which
includes any memories of the outcomes of the duplication experiments, so
the string of the W's and M'should be included in the definition of
you.
OK.
But
John says. The two can be very
different.
--
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:59:25 -0700
From: pie...@gmail.com javascript:
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
Subject: Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:06:31 PM UTC+10
On 06 Aug 2015, at 19:23, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
the nuance is not in the name or in the pronouns, but in
the 1p/3p difference, or in the 1-1p/3-1p difference.
In a world with people duplicating machines what
On 06 Aug 2015, at 19:38, smitra wrote:
You can just define personal identity as a single observer moment,
That is dangerous talk, but i see what you mean.
which includes any memories of the outcomes of the duplication
experiments, so the string of the W's and M'should be included
in
On 07 Aug 2015, at 02:59, Pierz wrote:
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
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
My point isn't that MWI is true. My point is you understand it and how it
leads to the appearance of indeterminacy in a completely determined system.
Indeterminacy is a 1-p illusion
It's either an illusion or it is
On 06 Aug 2015, at 00:57, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Since Bruno is clear about all this Bruno should have
no difficulty in complying to the request of substituting John
Clark for the personal pronoun you.
We did this
On 06 Aug 2015, at 02:37, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But there is no genuine reason to prefer one over the other.
Thta's the point, and that is why they both get one bit of
information,
No new information has been received.
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
. 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
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 11:39:47 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
if the quantum state evolves deterministically
The wave function most certainly evolves deterministically but that's
not important
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?
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the nuance is not in the name or in the pronouns, but in the 1p/3p
difference, or in the 1-1p/3-1p difference.
In a world with people duplicating machines what exactly is the
difference between
*THE*
1p
You can just define personal identity as a single observer moment, which
includes any memories of the outcomes of the duplication experiments, so
the string of the W's and M'should be included in the definition of
you.
You can also invent a machine that creates a consciousness that has
false
13:47:57 -0400
Subject: Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
For the sake of clarity and consistency when dealing with
this topic John Clark humbly
On 04 Aug 2015, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
For the sake of clarity and consistency when dealing with
this topic John Clark humbly requests that Bruno Marchal make the
following simple changes in future
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
if the quantum state evolves deterministically
The wave function most certainly evolves deterministically but that's not
important because the wave function is not observable, I want to know if
the actual physical state
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Since Bruno is clear about all this Bruno should have no difficulty in
complying to the request of substituting John Clark for the personal
pronoun you.
We did this already, but you came up with non sense
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But there is no genuine reason to prefer one over the other.
Thta's the point, and that is why they both get one bit of information,
No new information has been received. Long before the duplication button
was pressed
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? JC is a physicist so I presume he understands Everett. Ergo, he
understands, in principle, first person indeterminacy. He just loves
On 03 Aug 2015, at 18:51, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Then you die with the simple teleportation.
Then who will die in the simple teleportation?
You, when you are in Helsinki.
For the sake of clarity and
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
For the sake of clarity and consistency when dealing with this topic John
Clark humbly requests that Bruno Marchal make the following simple
changes in future correspondence with John Clark:
1) Substitute John
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo