Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Here's an etext! Happy hunting :) http://ia700700.us.archive.org/18/items/QuantumElectrodynamics/Feynman-QuantumElectrodynamics.pdf On 17 October 2013 10:33, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 16 Oct 2013, at 16:46, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 16 Oct 2013, at 16:46, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The point is that with the step 3 protocol, you (the H-guy) can never predict among {W, M}, if the result will be "I feel being the W-man", or "I feel being the M-man". That's because

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The point is that with the step 3 protocol, you (the H-guy) can never > predict among {W, M}, if the result will be "I feel being the W-man", or "I > feel being the M-man". > That's because neither will happen, however I the Helsinki Man c

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:18, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > what you say confirms that both the W-man and the M-man will assess that they were unable to predict the result of opening the door Bruno I really didn't need your help on that, I already

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Are you saying that John Clark after going through a (duplicating > teleporter cannot use anymore the indexical 'I' when talking about himself > No. me myself and I John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > what you say confirms that both the W-man and the M-man will assess that > they were unable to predict the result of opening the door > Bruno I really didn't need your help on that, I already knew that I can't always successfully predict wh

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

2013/10/15 John Clark > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > Alright, but this again leaves us at a crossroad: >> > 1) You believe that teleportation is fundamentally impossible > > > No. > > > 2) You believe that teleportation is possible > > > Yes. > > > in which case y

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Alright, but this again leaves us at a crossroad: > 1) You believe that teleportation is fundamentally impossible No. > 2) You believe that teleportation is possible Yes. > in which case you accept the thought experiment Yes, both the

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:39 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >>> >> I agree that if that one bit of information that they both see is not >>> identical then the 2 men are no longer identical either and it becomes >>> justified to give them differ

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> I agree that if that one bit of information that they both see is not >> identical then the 2 men are no longer identical either and it becomes >> justified to give them different names. >> > > > Ok, so you then also have to agree that John

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Telmo, entering sci-fi makes the discussion irrelevant. what if... can e anything I want to show (I almost wrote: prove). I am also against 'thought experiments' - designed to PROVE things unreal (=not experienced in real life) - like e.g. the EPR etc., involving 'unfacts'. By long back-and-forth p

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Dear John, > in spite of my reluctance to spend time and energy on that nightmare of > teleportation-related follies - (probably a result of too heavy dinners > after which Q-physicists could not sleep/relax) - and with no intention to > protect John Clark (a decent partner anyway) I may draw a th

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 14 Oct 2013, at 00:10, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-m

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 13 Oct 2013, at 20:14, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-man) get one bit of information, I agree that if that one bit of information

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 13 Oct 2013, at 18:58, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-man) get one bit of information, I agree that if that one bit of information that they both see is not identical then the 2 men are

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > >> if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-man) get one bit of > >> information, > > > > > > I agree

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Dear Telmo, in spite of my reluctance to spend time and energy on that nightmare of teleportation-related follies - (probably a result of too heavy dinners after which Q-physicists could not sleep/relax) - and with no intention to protect John Clark (a decent partner anyway) I may draw a thick line

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-man) get one bit of >> information, > > > I agree that if that one bit of information that they both see is not > identical then

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-man) get one bit of > information, > I agree that if that one bit of information that they both see is not identical then the 2 men are no longer identical either and it becomes justified to

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10 Oct 2013, at 22:36, LizR wrote: Both M and W man would have a continuous feeling of identity with H man. I don't see that you two really have opposing viewpoints, although as usual I may be missing something. No I agree. Clark does understand the 1-indeterminacy, as he betrayed by

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10 Oct 2013, at 20:35, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>The question is will "he" turn into the Moscow Man or the Washington Man, > Yes. Thank you! >> and that depends on one thing and one thing only, what information "he" receives. > N

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/10/2013 5:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 October 2013 13:06, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 10/10/2013 1:36 PM, LizR wrote: Both M and W man would have a continuous feeling of identity with H man. I don't see that you two really have opposing viewpoints,

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10 October 2013 12:25, chris peck wrote: > Hi Bruno > >>> I don't see why. There is a chance of 1/2 to feel oneself in M, and of >>> 1/2 to feel oneself in W, but the probability is 1 (assuming comp, the >>> protocol, etc.) to find oneself alive. > > This begs the question. And the probability

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 11 October 2013 13:06, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/10/2013 1:36 PM, LizR wrote: > >> Both M and W man would have a continuous feeling of identity with H man. >> I don't see that you two really have opposing viewpoints, although as usual >> I may be missing something. >> >> Of course if the brain c

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/10/2013 1:36 PM, LizR wrote: Both M and W man would have a continuous feeling of identity with H man. I don't see that you two really have opposing viewpoints, although as usual I may be missing something. Of course if the brain can't be considered digital at any level (as Kermit suggests

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Both M and W man would have a continuous feeling of identity with H man. I don't see that you two really have opposing viewpoints, although as usual I may be missing something. Of course if the brain can't be considered digital at any level (as Kermit suggests) then this is actually impossible, an

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>The question is will "he" turn into the Moscow Man or the Washington Man, >> > > > Yes. > Thank you! >> and that depends on one thing and one thing only, what information "he" >> receives. >> > > > Not at all. > What do you mean "not at

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

nfusing the points of view involved. Bruno Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:35:56 +1300 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com I still think this is quibbling. I at least believe I know what Bruno means when he asks H-man

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10 Oct 2013, at 03:37, LizR wrote: If Helsinki man understands the situation, he will assign a 100% probability to him being duplicated and ending in both places. Similarly a physicist who believes in MWI will assign a 100% probability to him splitting and observing all possible outcome

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

nt by oneself, and not rely on any authority, as we live in a lasting era where many people identify science with Aristotle theology. Best, Bruno All the best Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:36:12 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives ph

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 09 Oct 2013, at 19:23, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > [your] body-copy will be in two places, [you] can feel to be in only one place. If the copies are really identical then "you" feel to be in only one place (insofar as spatial positi

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

I won't...)* > > Precisely. Being a true MWI believer you can be certain of both. :) > > > > ------ > Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:35:56 +1300 > > Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? > From: lizj...@gmail.com > To: everyt

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Hi Liz >> Oh dear, I think I will go and lie down now. (Or then again, I won't...) Precisely. Being a true MWI believer you can be certain of both. :) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:35:56 +1300 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? From: lizj...@gmail.com To: ever

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

I still think this is quibbling. I at least believe I know what Bruno means when he asks H-man to assign a probability to "his" chances of appearing in Moscow. Perhaps Bruno is being sloppy in talking about probabilities, because the whole situation is deterministic, but it does at least give a "po

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

rs from that issue, though being 'comp' and presumably therefore dealing with things discretely, there maybe issues whenever irrational numbers appear in denominators. 1/PI vs. 1-1/PI as you have said before. All the best. From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.co

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

yes doctor' and then on the other hand stipulate their attitudes would actually conform to our 'folk psychology'. Either I am a 'comp practitioner' and my attitudes reflect that, or I am not a 'comp practitioner' would not say 'yes doctor

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/9/2013 6:37 PM, LizR wrote: If Helsinki man understands the situation, he will assign a 100% probability to him being duplicated and ending in both places. Similarly a physicist who believes in MWI will assign a 100% probability to him splitting and observing all possible outcomes. This i

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

nd deemed worthy of publishing and warrants more than the hand waving scoffs some academics here have been offering. All the best -- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:36:12 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

If Helsinki man understands the situation, he will assign a 100% probability to him being duplicated and ending in both places. Similarly a physicist who believes in MWI will assign a 100% probability to him splitting and observing all possible outcomes. This is not, however, how people normally vi

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

than the hand waving scoffs some academics here have been offering. All the best Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:36:12 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 10/9/2013 10:35

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/9/2013 10:35 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:19 PM, meekerdb > wrote: > How do you explain quantum mechanical probabilities in the Many Worlds interpretation? Not very well, assigning probabilities is unquestionably the weakest part of the

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10 October 2013 06:35, John Clark wrote: > The Many Worlds interpretation is the best bad explanation of why Quantum > Mechanics works. > Nicely summed up! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group a

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: > How do you explain quantum mechanical probabilities in the Many Worlds > interpretation? > Not very well, assigning probabilities is unquestionably the weakest part of the Many Worlds theory. True, Everett derived the Born Rule from his ideas, bu

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > [your] body-copy will be in two places, [you] can feel to be in only one > place. > If the copies are really identical then "you" feel to be in only one place (insofar as spatial position has any meaning when talking about consciousness) be

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9 October 2013 10:40, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/8/2013 1:50 PM, LizR wrote: > > That is the $64000 question! > > > Incidentally I haven't heard anyone use that expression in thirty years. > But I'm old enough to remember when Johnny Carson was the quiz master on > the radio program "The $64 Que

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/8/2013 1:50 PM, LizR wrote: That is the $64000 question! Incidentally I haven't heard anyone use that expression in thirty years. But I'm old enough to remember when Johnny Carson was the quiz master on the radio program "The $64 Question". How old are you Liz? Brent -- You receive

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/8/2013 1:50 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 October 2013 06:19, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 10/8/2013 9:05 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote: > You are spitting non-sense... that's not what

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9 October 2013 06:19, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/8/2013 9:05 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > You are spitting non-sense... that's not what is asked. He will do >> *both* from a 3rd POV but each Bruno can only live *ONE* stream of >>

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/8/2013 9:05 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > You are spitting non-sense... that's not what is asked. He will do *both* from a 3rd POV but each Bruno can only live *ONE* stream of consciousness whi

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 08 Oct 2013, at 18:05, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > You are spitting non-sense... that's not what is asked. He will do *both* from a 3rd POV but each Bruno can only live *ONE* stream of consciousness which is *either* M or W, it'

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > You are spitting non-sense... that's not what is asked. He will do *both* > from a 3rd POV but each Bruno can only live *ONE* stream of > consciousness which is *either* M or W, it's not both. So before > duplication, the probability (

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

;m not surprised if this is very naif though, and I have no intention of postulating. Telmo. > Brent > >> continuation of your first person experience and nothing more. In >> fact, "happening" becomes an entirely 1p concept. This does not prove >> anything bu

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Hi John, Bruno, I tried to control my mouse for a long time The M guy is NOT the Y guy, when he remembers having been the Y guy. Who is the Y guy? I guess you mean the guy in Helsinki. Yes, you said it many times, but NOW again! Has this list no consequential resolution? Some peop

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 07 Oct 2013, at 19:38, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Rhetorical tricks my ass! These are details of profound importance simply glossed over with the slapdash use of personal pronouns. And that's pretty damn sloppy for a mathematician. >

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 07 Oct 2013, at 18:23, John Clark wrote: Pointless unless you think it is a virtue to quite literally know what you are talking about. Bruno keeps throwing around words like "I" and "you" and "he" and it is very clear that Bruno doesn't know what those words mean in a world with dupl

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Why is there such a huge argument about this duplication chamber business? It seems to be not getting anywhere. Could you perhaps go back to the original statement of step 3 and use that to point out what is wrong? >From memory step 3 was - Helsinki man is teleported to both Washington and Moscow.

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

M On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/7/2013 1:32 PM, John Mikes wrote: > > Bruno, I tried to control my mouse for a long time > > The M guy is NOT the Y guy, when he remembers having been the Y guy. > Yes, you said it many times, but NOW again! Has this list no consequ

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/7/2013 1:32 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, I tried to control my mouse for a long time The M guy is NOT the Y guy, when he remembers having been the Y guy. Yes, you said it many times, but NOW again! Has this list no consequential resolution? Some people seem to have inexhaustible patie

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Bruno, I tried to control my mouse for a long time The M guy is NOT the Y guy, when he remembers having been the Y guy. Yes, you said it many times, but NOW again! Has this list no consequential resolution? Some people seem to have inexhaustible patience! "It" was in the past and in the meant

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

he time anyway. I think. Telmo. ________________ From: allco...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 14:03:53 +0200 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 2013/10/7 chris peck Hi Bruno Are you saying that the step 3 would pro

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Rhetorical tricks my ass! These are details of profound importance >> simply glossed over with the slapdash use of personal pronouns. And that's >> pretty damn sloppy for a mathematician. >> > > > That's again an unconvincing rhetorical tri

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

2013/10/7 John Clark > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, LizR wrote: > > >>The H-guy turns into the M-guy, but they are not identical just as >>> you are not identical with the Bruno Marchal of yesterday. >>> >> >> > This is true, but it's also something Bruno has said many times. >> > > Then Br

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, LizR wrote: >>The H-guy turns into the M-guy, but they are not identical just as you >> are not identical with the Bruno Marchal of yesterday. >> > > > This is true, but it's also something Bruno has said many times. > Then Bruno is not always wrong. > If comp i

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

ming comp is correct, we die in such sense at each instant, and here is another common point with some talk given by people having introspective experiences. Best regards, Bruno regards From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

it does fit what we observe without the need for a mysterious property called "randomness". You don't have to be suicidal to say yes to the doctor because what the doctor is going to do to you happens all the time anyway. I think. Telmo. > > Fro

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Bruno's theory, but not MWI, of having issues here. From: allco...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 14:03:53 +0200 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 2013/10/7 chris peck Hi Bruno >> Are you saying that the step 3 would provid

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

perience. Quentin > > -- > From: marc...@ulb.ac.be > > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? > Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:34:19 +0200 > > > > On 06 Oct 2013, at 22:48, LizR wrote: > > On 7

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

the doctor. regards From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:34:19 +0200 On 06 Oct 2013, at 22:48, LizR wrote:On 7 October 2013 06:48, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marcha

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 06 Oct 2013, at 22:48, LizR wrote: On 7 October 2013 06:48, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The M-guy is the H-guy (the M-guy remembers having been the H-guy) The H-guy turns into the M-guy, but they are not identical just as you are not id

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

the experiencer, it is reasonable to ascribe a probability of ½ to the event “I will be in Moscow (resp. Washington).” All the best Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 17:45:48 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 1

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 06 Oct 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The M-guy is the H-guy (the M-guy remembers having been the H-guy) The H-guy turns into the M-guy, but they are not identical just as you are not identical with the Bruno Marchal of yeste

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 06 Oct 2013, at 19:03, meekerdb wrote: On 10/6/2013 12:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Oct 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > you have agreed that all "bruno marchal" are the original one (a case where Leibniz identity rule f

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

indeterminacy, or just 1-indeterminacy. Giving that Moscow and Washington are permutable without any noticeable changes for the experiencer, it is reasonable to ascribe a probability of ½ to the event “I will be in Moscow (resp. Washington).” All the best Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 17:45:48 -0700 From:

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/6/2013 1:48 PM, LizR wrote: On 7 October 2013 06:48, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > The M-guy is the H-guy (the M-guy remembers having been the H-guy) The H-guy turns int

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 7 October 2013 06:48, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > The M-guy is the H-guy (the M-guy remembers having been the H-guy) >> > > The H-guy turns into the M-guy, but they are not identical just as you > are not identical with the Bruno Marchal of

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The M-guy is the H-guy (the M-guy remembers having been the H-guy) > The H-guy turns into the M-guy, but they are not identical just as you are not identical with the Bruno Marchal of yesterday. > The W-guy is the H-guy (the W-guy remem

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/6/2013 12:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Oct 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > you have agreed that all "bruno marchal" are the original one (a case where Leibniz identity rule fails, If yo

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 06 Oct 2013, at 01:29, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 10:34:11AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Oct 2013, at 10:05, Russell Standish wrote: I get that Bp is the statement that I can prove p, and that Bp & p is the statement that I know p (assuming Theatetus, of co

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 05 Oct 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > you have agreed that all "bruno marchal" are the original one (a case where Leibniz identity rule fails, If you're talking about Leibniz Identity of indiscernibles it most certainly has

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 10:34:11AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 05 Oct 2013, at 10:05, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > >I get that Bp is the statement that I can prove p, and that Bp & p is > >the statement that I know p (assuming Theatetus, of course), but in > >both cases, I would say the

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/5/2013 1:05 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Oct 2013, at 01:16, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:51:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Read AUDA, where you can find the mathematical definition for each pron

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > you have agreed that all "bruno marchal" are the original one (a case > where Leibniz identity rule fails, > If you're talking about Leibniz Identity of indiscernibles it most certainly has NOT failed. If the original and the copy are ident

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Personal pronouns with no referent >> > > > You never made any assertion explicit. Quote a passage of me with a > personal pronoun without referent. > The following is far far from complete, this just gives a taste of the incoherent use of

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 05 Oct 2013, at 17:05, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> the coin throw was random so you ended up in Moscow rather than Washington for no reason at all, but that's OK because there is no law of logic that demands every event have a cause. >

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 5:05 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> the coin throw was random so you ended up in Moscow rather than >>> Washington for no reason at all, but that's OK because there is no law of >>> logic that demands every event have a

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> the coin throw was random so you ended up in Moscow rather than >> Washington for no reason at all, but that's OK because there is no law of >> logic that demands every event have a cause. >> > > > The point is that in this case the randomn

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 05 Oct 2013, at 10:05, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Oct 2013, at 01:16, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:51:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Read AUDA, where you can find the mathematical definition for e

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 05 Oct 2013, at 01:16, Russell Standish wrote: > > >On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:51:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >>Read AUDA, where you can find the mathematical definition for each > >>pronouns, based on Kleene's recu

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 05 Oct 2013, at 01:16, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:51:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Read AUDA, where you can find the mathematical definition for each pronouns, based on Kleene's recursion theorem (using the Dx = "xx" trick, which I promised to do in term of numbe

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 04 Oct 2013, at 20:00, meekerdb wrote: On 10/4/2013 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Physical time, on the contrary is most plausibly a quantum notion, and should normally emerge (assuming comp) from the interference of all computations + the stable first person (plural) points of view. I

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:51:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Read AUDA, where you can find the mathematical definition for each > pronouns, based on Kleene's recursion theorem (using the Dx = "xx" > trick, which I promised to do in term of numbers, phi_i, W_i, etc. > but 99,999% will find th

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/4/2013 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Physical time, on the contrary is most plausibly a quantum notion, and should normally emerge (assuming comp) from the interference of all computations + the stable first person (plural) points of view. I don't think physical time is even a single co

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:18 PM, LizR wrote: > > From the point of view of Moscow man, say, it appears (retrospectively, > at least) that he had a 50-50 chance of going to either place. > Retrospective probability? In Many worlds and in these duplicating chamber thought experiments probability i

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

ing on the conclusion (about the success of the prediction) contained in all diaries. Bruno --- Original Message --- From: "LizR" Sent: 4 October 2013 7:20 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com, "Charles Goodwin" > Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? O

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 03 Oct 2013, at 19:28, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:59 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 , LizR wrote: >> What question about personal identity is indeterminate? There is a 100% chance that the Helsinki man will turn into the Moscow man because

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 03 Oct 2013, at 23:18, LizR wrote: On 4 October 2013 05:59, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 , LizR wrote: >> What question about personal identity is indeterminate? There is a 100% chance that the Helsinki man will turn into the Moscow man because the Helsinki Man saw Moscow, an

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 03 Oct 2013, at 17:51, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> The origin of the indeterminacies is the random use of personal pronouns with no clear referents by Bruno Marchal such that all questions like "what is the probability "I" will do this or that?" bec

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 03 Oct 2013, at 02:19, LizR wrote: On 3 October 2013 13:15, meekerdb wrote: Interestingly it appears that most coin tosses may be quantum random, arXiv:1212.0953v1 [gr-qc] (snip) I say "most" because I know that magicians train themselves to be able to flip a coin and catch it consis

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

gives philosophers a bad name? > From: te...@telmomenezes.com > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:37 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > On 10/2/2013 7:03 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wr

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 02 Oct 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> philosophically my low-tech experiment works just as well and is just as uninformative as your hi-tech version. > Not at all. In your low tech (using a coin), you get an indeterminacy from coin thro

  1   2   3   4   5   >