On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bruno asked me "Do you think that you die in a self-duplication >> experience?" and I said that depends on what the meaning of "you" is. Bruno >> responded with "We have already agree that "you" concerns the guy(s) who >> will remember having been in Helsinki", and that was fine with me because >> that is the meaning of the personal pronoun "you" that I like best. So I >> answered Bruno's question in a clear no nonsense way, I said "no, I don't >> think you die in a self-duplication experience". In those circumstances and >> given Bruno's definition of the pronoun what answer would you give? >> > > > That I don't die. > Then we agree. >>Then Bruno started putting all sorts of additional caveats and >> restrictions on the meaning of "you" that were very unclear. >> > > > He did not... > > >> >> So apparently we HAVEN'T already agree that "you" concerns the guy(s) >> who will remember having been in Helsinki. >> > > > That has *always* been the definition. > If that is the definition of "you" then why in hell doesn't Bruno agree that "you" will see BOTH Moscow AND Washington? >> It was at this point that I said Bruno was backpedaling and you started >> screaming personal insults. >> > > > He never did. > Given Bruno's previous definition to now insist that you only sees one city is very vigorous backpedaling. And it's true Bruno never screamed personal insults, but you did. >>> same thing in MWI. In MWI, you'll see from 1st POV *one* definite >>> result, >>> >> >> >> No. If MWI is correct then there are TWO 1st POV and you sees *two* >> definite results, >> > > > No *each you* sees only *one* result. > Correct, *each you* sees only *one* result, and that is precisely HALF the amount of information that would be needed to disprove the proposition that "you" will see BOTH Moscow AND Washington, and in the MWI it is precisely HALF the amount of information that would be needed to disprove the proposition that "you" will see BOTH spin up and spin down. And don't blame me if the language seems convoluted, English was developed long before Everett was born, and we still don't have duplicating chambers; when we do the English language will need major revisions. > The only question ask is the probability you see moscow > Will the Moscow Man be one of the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki? Yes. Therefore according to Bruno's definition of the pronoun (and mine too incidentally) you sees Moscow. > (resp. washington) > Will the Washington Man be one of the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki? Yes. Therefore according to Bruno's definition of the pronoun you sees Washington. And although that sounds ungrammatical it is logically correct, its just that the English language was never made with this sort of thing in mind. > > Answering 100% is simply false > No it isn't. > from 1st POV > It isn't unless you start backpedaling away from Bruno's original definition of the pronoun "you". I think this entire matter could be clarified if you could reformulate the following question in such a way that a simple yes or no answer can be given: "Do you die if two exact copies of Quentin Anciaux in Helsinki are made, one in Moscow and one in Washington and then the Helsinki body instantly destroyed?" For the time being lets not argue about what the answer is, all I want is the question expressed so clearly that one doesn't have to ask follow up questions about points of view or probabilities to give a simple yes or no answer. I'd really like to know how you'd rephrase it. I'll go first: Does the fellow who remembers being in Helsinki die if two exact copies of the fellow in Helsinki are made, one in Moscow and one in Washington, and then the Helsinki body instantly destroyed? I would answer the question with a simple "no" without the need for further explanations or caveats, but right now I'm more interested in how you would phrase the question such that it was clear and unambiguous rather than what your answer would be. John K Clark > as can be seen by lookint at the diary. > > >> True you see only spin up but if MWI is correct you has been duplicated >> and we haven't heard what that other fellow saw yet. >> > > We don't care, if you accept probability with MWI so should you in the > self-duplication thought experiment, and that's the only of step 3 and > always have been. > > Quentin > >> >> John K Clark >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. > > -- > 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.
