On 01 Jul 2012, at 18:15, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> Suppose you predict "I will be in Washinton."
But if he was smart and knowledgeable of the situation (and the
thought experiment would be useless if he was not) that would NOT be
his prediction, instead he would make 2 predictions:
1) I Bruno Marchal will write in my diary "I Bruno Marchal am now in
Washington and only Washington".
2) I Bruno Marchal will write in my diary "I Bruno Marchal am now in
Moscow and only Moscow".
> Then the Bruno in Washington will be right and the Bruno is Moscow
will say, "Oh, I was wrong."
No, after the copying Bruno Washington and Bruno Moscow will both
look at their identical diary entries and both will conclude "I was
right". And you, the third party outside observer, will look at the
behavior of both Bruno Washington and Bruno Moscow and you will
agree with the first person perspective of both of them that the
accuracy of their predictions was indeed perfect. There will be no
indeterminacy and no confusion between "1-pov" and "3-pov" and
everybody will agree on what has occurred, unless of course somebody
makes the illogical assumption that there can be only one Bruno
Marchal
But for all persons, not just the John Clarks and Bruno Marchals, I
mean, for all persons, they feel only to be one among all those persons.
You just don't do the thought experiment. You keep your view fixed in
the third person view. But comp can predict the future first person
view easily, and comp predicts that you, from your first person point
of view, will live a unique first person experience, among
I was in Sidney and now I am in Washington
and
I was in Sidney and now I am in Moscow.
You are, by definition asked to predict which one.
Your two predictions:
1) I Bruno Marchal will write in my diary "I Bruno Marchal am now in
Washington and only Washington".
2) I Bruno Marchal will write in my diary "I Bruno Marchal am now in
Moscow and only Moscow".
cannot work for this, because "1)" and "2)" are simply incompatible
from all the resulting possible future first person points of view of
both "bruno marchal" (your terming). Each "bruno marchal" will see
that only one of the two has been realized, and which one was the
object of the question.
When the W-John Clark and the M-John Clark will look at their diaries
and see the two predictions, They will understand that only one of
the two prediction has been verified, from their first person point of
view, and both knows which one, now. If they redo the experience, they
know that the prediction bears on the future unique first person
experience. Which one cannot be predicted in advance for obvious
logical reason.
Just after the experience is done, they will each know for sure which
one among 1) and 2) has been realized, for each of them, and they will
know the existence of their doppelganger only intellectually a bit
later.
In case you have not yet grasp the question, I insist that the
question bears only on that future first person experience. Not on a
third person description of bodies nor on a third person description
of first person experiences, only on the first person experience. Comp
makes this indeterminate in case of (self) multiplication.
Or give me the algorithm which will choose among 1) and 2), given that
comp predicts that all first person experience will indeed experience
such a selection.
And the iterated self-duplication protocols leads to white noise for
almost all 2^n (n big) resulting first person points of view,
justifying, in such protocol the P = 1/2.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
