On 18 Oct 2013, at 04:04, chris peck wrote:
Hi Jason
>> Subject refers to the I, the indexical first-person.
The word 'I' is indexical, like 'now' and 'here'. The experience
isn't indexical, its just me.
'me' is also an indexical. Both the 3-me, and, more indirectly though,
the 1-me.
Bruno
>> This page offers some examples of the distinction ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/#PurIndTruDem
).
Thanks. Im still confused as to how my use of 'subjective certainty'
does not imply the certainty applies to the indexical 'I'ity of me.
It certainly does in my head. When I say I am uncertain/certain of
things I am definately saying I am having the 1-p experience of
certainty/uncertainty.
>> Knowing that she becomes all does not allow her (prior to the
splitting, or prior to the duplication) to know where the photon
will be observed (or what city she finds herself in). This is the
subjective uncertainty. Certainty only exists when talking about
the experiences of others from the standpoint of some external
impartial observer.
You're begging the question here. You're just reasserting your
conclusion about what is infact up for grabs. You're effectively
arguing that unless I agree that there is subjective uncertainty
then I am confusing 1-p for 3-p.
Interestingly, Everett was allegedly certain of his own
immortality. One of the reasons he specified in his will that his
ashes should be ditched alongside the trash. I can't imagine a more
morbid yet expressive demonstration of subjective certainty about
MWI and all outcomes obtaining.
>> I mean subjective in a stronger sense than just that it is
experienced by someone, rather that it is experienced by the "I".
Without begging the question, in what way is that a stronger sense
than the one I have used? It seems identical to me.
>> The particular error that I am pointing out is that the
branching in MWI and the duplication in the UDA are in a certain
sense equivalent and result in similar consequences from the
viewpoint of those being multiplied.
yes. I agree they are equivolent in the relevant respects.
>>All the experiencers you might say she becomes only have access
to one outcome, and if she had bet on having (access to) all the
possible experiences, then she would find herself to be wrong (all
of her copies would conclude, oh I was wrong, I thought I would
experience this outcome with 100% probability but instead I am
experiencing this one).
I think Greaves point is more subtle than you give credit for. The
point is that at any point where all relevant facts are known
subjective uncertainty can not arise. I don't think that is
contentious at all. There is a difference though between what is
known before teleportation and after. Immediately after
teleportation there will be uncertainty because you are no longer
sure of your location but are sure that you have been duplicated and
sent to one place or the other. This gives room for doubt. Before
teleportation there is no room for doubt. I often think the
responses I've had try to inject doubt from the future. They dwell
on the doubt that would be had once duplication and teleportation
have taken place. This is illegitimate in my view. Besides which, If
i bet on being in both Moscow and in Washington with certainty, then
if I end up in either place I win the bet. In the same way if I bet
that a coin toss will be either heads or tails I win the bet.
>> So do you think you could tell whether a transporter was sending
you to one of two locations with a 50% probability, or sending you
to both locations?
I think we're going around in circles here. The transporter is
sending me to both locations and it is axiomatic that I survive in
both locations.
>> Could you be more specific regarding what you consider the
problems to be?
Not at the moment. As i said, Im not sure what to make of any of it.
regards.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:04:58 +1300
Subject: Re: For John Clark
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
The basis problem is no different from the "present" problem under
special relativity: If we exist in many times across space time, why
do we find ourselves in this particular "now"?
I don't know about the basis problem, but the now problem is simple
to solve - we don't find ourselves in a particular now, find
ourselves in all the nows.
Unless you mean "why do we find ourselves in this particular now,
now?" - which kind of answers itself, when you think about it!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
