Re: UDA paper

From: Mirek Dobsicek <>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:24:09 +0100

Hi Bruno,

yes, I am now a bit busy. Lecturing, seminars,.. wedding planning :-)

I am somewhere in the middle your paper. Regarding the very point of the
described 1-indeterminancy, I have no problem there at all. Anyone who
ever called a fork() unix function (read, cut, duplicate) followed by an
execve(read-destination-name-from-keyboard()) function, should not have
a problem here. A program, even with considerably good self-referential
skills, has no chance to know whether I will enter Warsaw or Moscow on
the keyboard.

As I have said, I have not finished reading the paper yet. But sometime
I have a problem with a bit of feeling of circularity of arguments, or
described in better words, given assumptions A={..}, conjectures B={...}
are true, where Bs feels like rephrased As, and therefore Bs are
trivially true. No disrespect here!

It just how do I feel now. Bs are overwhelming, but As are pretty strong
assumptions, so Bs are not surprising anymore, yet an hour later Bs are
overwhelming again.


Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Mirek,
> I guess you are busy.
> I would just like to insist that when I say (14-febr.-08):
>> Please note that the 1-indeterminacy I am talking about in the third
>> step is really a pure classical indeterminacy. It arises from the fact
>> that my classical state is duplicable, and then I cannot predict which
>> *experience* I will *feel* after a self-duplication: mainly Washington
>> OR Moscow (or Sidney *or* Beijing), ...
> This is really a key point, if not *the* key point. I think it is
> almost trivial, but sometimes some people have a problem with this. In
> that case it helps to imagine the same experiment done with some
> inference inductive machine in place of a human or "you", and this in
> an iterated self-duplication. In that case the result amount to saying
> that no robot, when duplicated iteratively (in Washington and Moscow,
> say) can predict its future sequence of results of first person
> self-localization. This becomes equivalent with the fact that most
> finite bit-strings, like WMMMWWMWWWM ... are not compressible.
> Someone told me (out-of-line) that he *can* predict with certainty his
> future in that situation: for example he can predict WWWWWWWWW..., but
> this means he is not taking into account the saying of the other
> reconstituted people, which, *assuming comp* are genuine "descendant"
> of the "original". Those people will acknowledge that their "prediction
> with certainty" was false, and they have the same right and reason to
> be taken seriously, again when we *assume* the comp hypothesis.
> Have you a problem with this? I think most on this list grasp this
> point, but don't hesitate to tell me if you don't. Without a clear
> understanding of what happens here we can't really proceed ... (nor can
> we grasp Everett formulation of QM I could argue ...).
> Bruno

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Wed Feb 20 2008 - 10:24:03 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST