On 05 Nov 2012, at 19:41, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Again the same main 1-3 confusion.
I see nothing I can be confused about because the only point of view
I can see is my own first person one, what your second or his third
person point of view may be is pure speculation on my part and so I
will say nothing about it.
We work with the comp theory, and ideal machine. The 1-views used are
simple accessible memories in the brain or written in a diary.
And it is the purpose of the thread to dig on those notion.
We are no doing speculation, but we reason in a theory.
> You can only say that [...]
You? John Clark has been duplicated so who "can only say that", me
or that fellow to my right who looks just like me?
Both of them after the duplication.
You? John Clark has been duplicated so who "can only say that", me
or that fellow to my left who looks just like me?
Both of them after the duplication.
If we reiterate a great number of times the experience, we are allowed
to make a sampling.
> John Clark would be certain that *a* John Clark would die a
painful death, not that it will necessarily ever matter from your
(the unique John Clark before the experience) future point of view
A future experience NEVER matters to the unique person occupying the
present because its in the future,
That is a different issue, and is basically wrong.
but when the future becomes the present just before John Clark's
last painful thought John Clark will remember being John Clark of
the past.
> Look at AUDA
According to Google "AUDA" is either a investment firm, a Bedouin
Arab leader, or a Latvian football club playing in the second-
highest division of Latvian football. I don't see the relevance in
any of them.
AUDA is for Arithmetical UDA. It is UDA but with the use of the
mathematical definition of the pronouns, by using the only definition
possible given by computer science, on ideally correct machines. It is
part 2) of sane2004, although I use "interview" instead of AUDA. But
it is the same. It is the purely math part of my investigation. The
one where a part of physics is derived an the showing that QM confirms
comp up to now.
You confirm that you have not read the post, nor the paper, and that
you have some prejudice on the whole field.
> Avoiding the use of pronouns there would conflate even more easily
the 1-3 key distinction.
I couldn't fail to disagree with you less. What you really mean by
"conflate" is to shine a bright light on your ideas to expose their
errors in stark relief.
Pronouns are supposed to be used just for convenience, instead of
laboriously typing "Bruno Marchal" the pronouns "you" or "he" can be
used. But sometimes even in everyday experiences without the huge
complication of duplicating chambers pronouns can lead to ambiguity.
We've all had the experience of reading a very convoluted sentence
and then seeing at the end "and so I disagree with it" and not being
certain what "it" refers to and thus being unsure if the writer
agrees with you or not. Now if we introduce duplicating chambers
pronouns are a billion times more dangerous. To say that "you have
been duplicated" and then to ask what "you" will see feel or want is
just begging for ambiguity and confusion.
No, because the "1-you", which has been well defined, can easily
predict, by the comp assumption, that he is indeterminate about what
he will feel, WHOEVER he feel to be after the experience. In Helsinki,
with comp, he is certain (assuming comp + protocol) that he will FELL
TO BE in only one place after the experience, and he is certain that
any prediction of the type W & M, W, M, will all fail. Only "W or M"
will be exact for both.
You give the feeling of faking to not understand what we are talking
about.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
