RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

nseen coming and going.) -Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 2:23 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 9/28/2013 12:37 PM, Chris de Mors

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/28/2013 4:28 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: >>But supposing this giant and very loosely organized group is, as a group, responsible for a bombing because some of it's explosives were used, is a very big stretch. It's much simpler and more likely that a rouge element in one small group, may

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish wrote: > On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:29:30PM -0400, John Clark wrote: > > > > Bruno, if you have something new to say about this "proof" of yours then > > say it, but don't pretend that 2 years of correspondence and hundreds of > > posts in which I list

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 4:45 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 9/28/2013 4:28 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: >&g

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 28 Sep 2013, at 16:58, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Everett mention what you call "feeling of identity", which is a consequence of modeling the observer by a machine It doesn't matter if "modeling the observer by a machine" is valid or n

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 28 Sep 2013, at 20:25, meekerdb wrote: On 9/28/2013 12:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ... Prohibition is only a technic to sell a lot of drugs, without quality control, nor price control, + the ability to directly target all kids on all streets, making huge black markets, and leading to

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 28 Sep 2013, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 9/28/2013 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Sep 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 Russell Standish wrote: > I do remember a conversation you had with Bruno about 5 years ago when you were discussing what a man in

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

the opposite, in fact go to great lengths to intellectualize the situation. You fail to 'get into the head' of a comp practitioner prior to duplication. All the best. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? Date: Sun, 29

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > And "cause" is a complex high level notion. > A cause is complex and at a high level only if the effect is complex and at a high level. If Z is at the fundamental level (assuming there really is such a level and causes and effects aren't infinitely nes

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 2:56 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> Does "comp" mean every event must have a cause? That question has a >> simple yes or no answer, and you made up the word so you must know the >> answer, what is it? If it's yes then I don't believe in this thing you call >> "comp". >> > > > But

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/29/2013 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As he knows in advance that he will feel, whoever he is, live only one (again, from The 1-pov). But that sentence is hard to parse. "Whoever he is" implies there is only one "he", as if he is a soul that goes to either Moscow or Washington but not b

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 29 Sep 2013, at 12:19, chris peck wrote: Hi Bruno, and thanks for the reply. >> Precisely: the expectation evaluation is asked to the person in Helsinki, before the duplication is done, and it concerns where the person asked will feel to be, from his first person point of view. --

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 29 Sep 2013, at 19:38, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > And "cause" is a complex high level notion. A cause is complex and at a high level only if the effect is complex and at a high level. If Z is at the fundamental level (assuming there really is such a

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 29 Sep 2013, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote: On 9/29/2013 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As he knows in advance that he will feel, whoever he is, live only one (again, from The 1-pov). But that sentence is hard to parse. "Whoever he is" implies there is only one "he", ? It implies there i

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/28/2013 12:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I have few doubt that 9/11 is an inside job, and the evidences are > rather big that this is the case, > How the hell did this thread turn into a showcase for looney conspiracy theories? The level of logical rigor shown in this idea is similar to

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/30/2013 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Sep 2013, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote: On 9/29/2013 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As he knows in advance that he will feel, whoever he is, live only one (again, from The 1-pov). But that sentence is hard to parse. "Whoever he is" implies there

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> A cause is complex and at a high level only if the effect is complex and >> at a high level. If Z is at the fundamental level (assuming there really is >> such a level and causes and effects aren't infinitely nested) then it's >> quite lit

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 1 October 2013 09:40, John Clark wrote: > > Personal identity has nothing to do with prediction, and there is a 100% > probability the the Washington man and the Moscow man remember being the > Helsinki man, and that is all you need to know to say that the Helsinki man > had more than one futu

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

me. Im 3-peeing me. regards Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 12:32:06 +1300 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 1 October 2013 09:40, John Clark wrote: Personal identity has nothing to do with prediction, and there is a 100% pro

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 30 Sep 2013, at 16:50, John Clark wrote: On 9/28/2013 12:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I have few doubt that 9/11 is an inside job, and the evidences are rather big that this is the case, How the hell did this thread turn into a showcase for looney conspiracy theories? The level of

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 30 Sep 2013, at 22:25, meekerdb wrote: On 9/30/2013 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Sep 2013, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote: On 9/29/2013 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As he knows in advance that he will feel, whoever he is, live only one (again, from The 1-pov). But that sentence is

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 30 Sep 2013, at 22:40, John Clark wrote: Personal identity has nothing to do with prediction, and there is a 100% probability the the Washington man and the Moscow man remember being the Helsinki man, and that is all you need to know to say that the Helsinki man had more than one fut

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

might find them difficult to accept, all the while side stepping the possibility that the ideas are just wrong. All you have done in this post is deflect, obfuscate and deny the bleeding obvious. >> A child recently saw by himself that even God cannot predict to you (in >> Helsinki) the ou

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

is a 3-p perspective. As soon as I imagine me being somewhere else, I am objectifying me. Im 3-peeing me. regards Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 12:32:06 +1300 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 1 October 2013 09:40, Jo

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 01 Oct 2013, at 14:47, chris peck wrote: Hi Bruno >>You might quote mùe, but I make clear and insist, at each step of the UDA, that the question is addressed before the duplication. You insist but you do not make clear. Even in this reply you state: "On the contrary, it is very simple

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 1 October 2013 13:47, chris peck wrote: >>> You certainly failed to provide a flaw, in case you think there is one. >>> may be you can elaborate. > > I've provided the same flaw other people have and I have elaborated at > length. There is no point in elaborating much further with you. You ar

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > Every one know that if we assume that if the Helsinki man can survive > digital teleportation, in each of those futures he will feel to be unique, > and living in only one city, Digital teleportation is not necessary, with existing technology I can ma

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Your reasoning would show that in Everett QM, where we have also many > different futures, Yes. > but as Everett explained, the indeterminacy remains, it just become > first person Forget Everett, forget Quantum Mechanics, even in pure

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 01 Oct 2013, at 17:07, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: > Every one know that if we assume that if the Helsinki man can survive digital teleportation, in each of those futures he will feel to be unique, and living in only one city, Digital teleportation is

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Digital teleportation is not necessary, with existing technology I can >> make a real experiment, not just a thought experiment, that incorporates >> all the philosophical implications, such as they are, as your hi-tech >> version. In Helsi

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 01 Oct 2013, at 17:48, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Your reasoning would show that in Everett QM, where we have also many different futures, Yes. > but as Everett explained, the indeterminacy remains, it just become first person Forge

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/1/2013 7:13 AM, David Nyman wrote: However, on reflection, this is not what one should deduce from the logic as set out. The logical structure of each subjective moment is defined as encoding its relative past and anticipated future states (an assumption that seems consistent with our under

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Forget Everett, forget Quantum Mechanics, even in pure Newtonian physics >> subjective indeterminacy exists because of lack of information. If you knew >> the exact speed things were moving at and the coefficient of friction and >> the aero

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 1 October 2013 18:34, meekerdb wrote: > But then it seems one needs the physical, or at least the subconscious. If > one conceives a "subjective moment" as just what one is conscious of in "a > moment" it doesn't encode very much of the past. And in the digital > simulation paradigm the comp

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 1 October 2013 22:47, chris peck wrote: >>> A child recently saw by himself that even God cannot predict to you (in >>> Helsinki) the outcome felt after such duplication. > > I can imagine a child being fooled by the idea. Obviously I would disagree > with this child. I tend to agree with Bru

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

tep 3? To what extent are people giving Bruno the benefit of the doubt because its a bit like Everett? All the best > From: stath...@gmail.com > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:40:47 +1000 > Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > O

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 2 October 2013 14:51, chris peck wrote: > I also don't think he should ride on the back of Everett. It seems that > there is an argument now that Brunos' conclusions are similar to Everett's, > therefore lets be forgiving about his informal proof. Lets not. > Sorry, I think that was me. I was

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 01:51:01AM +, chris peck wrote: > Hi David > > Thanks for the response. It was by far the best response Ive had and a > pleasure to read. > > Lets distinguish between conclusions and arguments. > > > I can entertain many bizarre conclusions. I often wonder about an

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

d. Perhaps what I do wrong here is paying Bruno the respect of taking him at his word? Regards. > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:32:25 +1000 > From: li...@hpcoders.com.au > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 05:25:32AM +, chris peck wrote: > Hi Russell > > >> Not at all. The UDA does not depend on the MWI at all. > > And I didn't suggest it did. This is exquisite chaos. Assuming none of us are > correct then we're rebutting rebuttles we misrepresent of arguments that have

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 01 Oct 2013, at 18:41, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Digital teleportation is not necessary, with existing technology I can make a real experiment, not just a thought experiment, that incorporates all the philosophical implications, such

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 01 Oct 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote: On 10/1/2013 7:13 AM, David Nyman wrote: However, on reflection, this is not what one should deduce from the logic as set out. The logical structure of each subjective moment is defined as encoding its relative past and anticipated future states (an as

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 01 Oct 2013, at 22:20, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Forget Everett, forget Quantum Mechanics, even in pure Newtonian physics subjective indeterminacy exists because of lack of information. If you knew the exact speed things were moving

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 01 Oct 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote: > > On 10/1/2013 7:13 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > However, on reflection, this is not what one should deduce from the > logic as set out. The logical structure of each subjective moment is > defined a

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

fashion. Now I see an argument brewing that all this is a trivial matter consequent on how Bruno has phrased step 3. Maybe it is trivial. But is Bruno trivially right or trivially wrong in step 3? To what extent are people giving Bruno the benefit of the doubt because its a bit like Everet

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

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 throwing, > And the coin throw was random so

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/2/2013 7:03 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Oct 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote: On 10/1/2013 7:13 AM, David Nyman wrote: However, on reflection, this is not what one should deduce from the logic as set out. The logical structure of eac

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

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 wrote: >>> >>> On 01 Oct 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> On 10/1/2013 7:13 AM, David Nyman wrote: >>> >>> However, on reflection, this is not wh

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 3 October 2013 06:48, 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 >>

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

Hi Bruno [JC] Because step 3 sucks. [Bruno] Why? You have not yet make a convincing point on this. His point is convincing me. regards. > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 23:18:07 +0200 > Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? > From: te...@telmomenezes.com > To: eve

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 3 October 2013 12:38, chris peck wrote: > Hi Bruno > > *[JC] Because step 3 sucks. > * > * * > * * > * ** * > * > * > * * > *[Bruno] Why? You have not yet make a convincing point on this. * > > His point is convincing me. > > Which point is that? JC said: What question about personal identity

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/2/2013 4:33 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 October 2013 06:48, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: >> philosophically my low-tech experiment works just as well and is just as uninformative

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

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 consistently. > > Interesting. I think

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

ing but on the face of it MWI has an issue with 1-p indeterminacy. It shouldn't really be there. Regards. Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:19:50 +1300 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 3 October 2013 13:15, meekerdb wrote:

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 3 October 2013 14:12, chris peck wrote: > Hi Liz > * > >> Is there something wrong with quantum indeterminacy? > > * > Apart from the fact the MWI removes it? And that that is the point of MWI? > And that probability questions in MWI are notoriously thorny? > OK, and since the comp teleporter

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

> On 3 Oct 2013, at 11:12 am, chris peck wrote: > > Hi Liz > > >> Is there something wrong with quantum indeterminacy? > > Apart from the fact the MWI removes it? And that that is the point of MWI? > And that probability questions in MWI are notoriously thorny? > > This is why I resort to t

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

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?" become meaningless. >> > > > ? Which word didn't

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 LizR wrote: > I have always had trouble with the MWI version of this - it's generally > hard to believe that "the person who is having these experiences" will > become "two people who have had different experiences" (to avoid any > personal pronouns in those descriptions). >

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

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, and a 100% chance the Helsinki Man will turn into >> the Washington Man because the He

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

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 the >>> Helsinki Man saw Moscow, and a 100% chance the Hels

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

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, and a 100% chance the Helsinki Ma

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 4 October 2013 06:28, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > You were kind enough to let the list know, along with Chris Peck, that the > flaw in the reasoning concerning step 3 of the UDA is "it sucks". > > Unless you guys backtrack and quit abusing the fact that Bruno's > politeness and dedicatio

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

your attempts to clarify them. I see flaws in what you say. Does that really insult you? --- 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? On

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 4 October 2013 11:56, chris peck wrote: > Hi Liz / pgc > > If I have been abusive to you or Bruno then I apologize without > hesitation. If you would show where I have been abusive though I would > appreciate that, because at the moment I regard the suggestion as low and > mean spirited. > >

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 02 Oct 2013, at 16:03, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Oct 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote: On 10/1/2013 7:13 AM, David Nyman wrote: However, on reflection, this is not what one should deduce from the logic as set out. The logical structur

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

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 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?

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 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 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?

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 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?

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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?

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 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?

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?

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 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 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?

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?

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

<    1   2   3   4   5   >