2014-02-19 1:21 GMT+01:00 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>: > On 2/17/2014 10:25 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014-02-18 3:35 GMT+01:00 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>: > >> On 2/17/2014 5:57 PM, David Nyman wrote: >> >> On 17 February 2014 20:15, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> But it is unambiguous under comp ex hypothesi: i.e. any classically >>> adequate copy of me is equivalent to me. Under this hypothesis if I am >>> duplicated both the resulting continuations are equivalent immediately >>> posterior to duplication. Consequently I repeat my question: if *you* were >>> duplicated in this manner, would you reasonably expect that either of the >>> resulting equivalent continuations would experience a two-valued outcome? >>> >>> No, but as I said, that's regarding them as third persons. >>> >> >> Well, the very logic of the hypothesis dictates that *both* >> continuations inherit the first personal perspective of the original and >> this will always be single-valued. But, as you said, there is an >> ineliminable ambiguity because neither can record anything first-personal >> that incorporates that third-personal doubleness. IOW it always seems as if >> there is only one of me (1p) even in the case that I know there are two of >> me (3p). Do you agree that this ambiguity is sufficient for step 3 to go >> through? >> >> >> You sound as though you want to sell me something. I have no interest >> buying the argument one piece at a time or swallowing it all at once. I'm >> interested in understanding it and it's consequences. >> > > It's seems to me that following the argument step by step is then the > thing to do... and if you disagree with a step, explain why... > > > When an argument is a reductio you don't necessarily know which step to > disagree with. >
But you seem to concentrate on the non-argument of possible meeting of a duplication experiment like John Clark, if there is a point to be made, and if you can explain why the mere possibility for the doppelganger to meet render probability calculus meaningless, John Clark has been asked this question for year and cannot answer it, it seems he prefer trolling than answering this simple question... Arguing against step three and FPI, is also arguing against MWI. If you're arguing against both then I agree. Quentin > > Brent > > -- > 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. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
