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
>> ambiguous.
>
>
> >
> I have
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 that personal
pronoun
but it doesn't work
well tracking duplicates across space at a particular time. So JC-0 can't track
to JC-1. So, for example whilst it is true that JC-0-'you' is not JC-1-'you',
both are JC-H-'you'. In otherwords, because JC-0 and JC-1's experiences are
ion, or a modal notion, in which the Leibniz identity
principle (a = b and a = c ->. b = c) is not valid. No problem, this
is illustrated also in the math part, and indeed it explains why we
can't avoid modal logic. But this does not refute the FPI, if that is
what you were trying t
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 your theory can not
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
would get the compute
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 of why not.
>
>
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 theory can not give an
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 in spite of the fac
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), computations, emulation
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.
>
> >
> No, it is a
101 - 111 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
