All of Flying Pen and Paper's Comments + Replies

Avtur Chin writes:

'From A follows A' can be in two meta-stable situations; If A is false and if A is true. But typically circular logic is used to prove that A is true and ignores the other situation.

which I agree with. This can be contrasted with “From A does not follow not A”, which I believe entails A (as a false statement implies everything?).

When trying to prove a logical statement B from A, we generally have a sense of how much B resembles A, which we could interpret as a form of distance. Both A and not A resemble A very much.

I’ll formalise this... (read more)

Yes, it would imply the observer is external, but then it also would not change anything about how the brain functions. (Or vice versa, but I prefer this one.) I am unconvinced of the truth of what you say in the last sentence of your second paragraph.

Either way, whether or not it might seem implausible, my question is why it is, or is not, implausible. Why exactly, based on what we currently know, is this extremely unlikely?

I don’t see why split-screen mode is crazy talk at all. Is it just because it would imply faster-than-light communication? With our understanding of physics incomplete, I remain agnostic on the existence of FTL, so I wouldn’t rule this out. But even more than that, I’d propose that if there is one observer, there does not even need to be FTL communication in the first place, because it is just that the observer is in more than one place at once, similarly to how a wormhole does not necessitate true FTL. What are the other objections?

The belief system which... (read more)

2Brent
It's not just that it implies faster-than-light communication, it's that it implies communication at all. Experiencing both bodies at the same time, you will be able to take actions in one body that you wouldn't have done without the other one. It seems odd that with no biological changes to your brain, the mere existence of another similar brain changes how this one functions. Why would they be linked? This implies the observer is some external soul-like thing that can manipulate matter. If you can't take actions based on your conscious experience, it implies the observer is dissociated from the brain and not created from it or able to interact with it. I can definitely imagine a world where this is true, but it seems extremely unlikely based on what we currently know.

Observe that  is a set of natural numbers. If  then  cannot be finite, and it seems pretty obvious that almost all the elements in  are the same (they only disagree at a finite number of places after all). 

The bracketed remark doesn't appear to be true. Why can we not have  or ? Indeed, by the definition of an ultrafilter, we must have one of them in . Also, in the post, you use  for two different purposes, which makes the post slightly less ... (read more)