On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote >> silly assumptions like there can be only one Bruno Marchal >> > > > That is not a silly assumptions. It is a consequence of > computationalism. >
So you've proved that if "computationalism" is true then there can be only one Bruno Marchal, but for the proof to work you've got to start with the assumption that there can be only one Bruno Marchal. Seems like a lot of wasted effort to me. > After the duplication and differentiation, there is only one Bruno > Marchal from the points of view of all Bruno Marchal. > And assuming they are logical all the Bruno Marchals would agree with each other on that point, and I the third party observer agree too. > You don't give a prediction. You gave two predictions. > And that's twice as good if both predictions turn out to be true, and they do. > If "1) + 2)" means "1) AND 2)": both will know the prediction was wrong. > How on earth will they know it was wrong when every word that was predicted to be written in those diaries was in fact written? It's interesting, you're the one who introduced the idea of the people in the experiment using diaries so it could be a real scientific experiment, but now you don't like that idea. >> You, Bruno Marchal, are now in Washington and you write in your diary >> "I Bruno Marchal am now in Washington and only Washington". >> > > > Yes. And I know I am not the one in Moscow. > For God's sake, you know you're not the one in Moscow because you're not the one in Moscow! X is not Y because if it were Y would be X; Where is the cosmic significance in that? > 1) "I find myself in Washington, and realize that I could not have > predicted that particular outcome, > And yet by looking in the diary that you had written you find rock solid proof that you DID predict that outcome. Maybe you made other predictions too, one about some fellow in Moscow, and maybe you made a prediction about the rain probability in Duluth Minnesota too, but all that's irrelevant, it doesn't effect you because you're in Washington. > > 2) "I find myself in Moscow, and realize that I could not have predicted > that particular outcome, > And yet by looking in the diary that you had written you find rock solid proof that you DID predict that outcome. Maybe you made other predictions too, one about some fellow in Washington, and maybe you made a prediction about the rain probability in Duluth Minnesota too, but all that's irrelevant, it doesn't effect you because you're in Moscow. > you keep describing the 3-view on the 1-views, instead of listening to > each reconstituted person > I am listening to them, and introducing the diaries into this was your idea not mine. John K Clark -- 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.
