Now, I take some rest by answering an easy an rather clear post.
On 10 Jul 2014, at 21:40, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> I assume comp
Well good for "comp".
> I will push on the button, and I know I will not find myself in
both city.
Exactly.
> Only in one from my future first person perspective,
There are 2 future first person perspectives.
Exactly.
>> If there are two (and there are) why didn't Bruno Marchal ask
what cities John Clark will see from *a* 1p?
> That is the 3p view *on* the future 1-views.
The? why not *a* future 1-view?
Because as you just agree above, there are 2 futures first person
perspectives, which both feel to be in front of one city.
Are you not just contradicting yourself.
> The answer will be "W and M". But that is specifically not what is
asked to the guy in Helsinki. He is
John Clark hates pronouns!
Come on. "He" refers to "the guy in Helsinki", in the preceding
sentence, and of course at the moment he makes the asked prediction,
and thus before he pushes on the button.
> questioned about what he
John Clark hates pronouns!
> expects from his
John Clark hates pronouns!
> future experience, as he knows
John Clark hate pronouns!
> that he will not die,
John Clark hates pronouns!
> in this case the future of the unique first person in Helsinki
splits in two, and thus is indeterminate from its first person point
of view.
If it is asked "Is this unmeasured electron spin up or spin down"
John Clark understands the question but it can't ve answered
because before it is measured the electron's spin is indeterminate,
but in this case John can't answer what city "you" will see because
John doesn't understand the question. It is claimed that Bruno has
discovered something called "first person indeterminacy" that makes
it impossible to answer a certain question. Well, what is that
question? John Clark needs to know EXACTLY because John Clark is
willing to concede that a ambiguous question can not be answered,
but Bruno wasn't the first to figure that out.
The question is not ambiguous at all. We have agree on all the use of
pronouns.
As you believe in comp, you know that when you push on the button, you
will survive in only ONE city, even if you will surivive in olny one
city, in two cities at once *from a third person view". But yopu know
that none of the copies have telepathoc power making hem aware of
their doppelganger reconsistution, and can only imagine that third
person view, as for both of them, they did get one bit of information.
The following exercise is no more ambiguous. I repeat the WM-
duplication 1000 times, evaluate your chance of having the first
person experience of having been to Moscow 400 times exactly.
And speaking of predictions John Clark predicts that when Bruno
Marchal states the question in the next post it will be filled with
words that are ambiguous in a world with duplicating machines, words
like "I" and "he" and "you". John Clark further predicts that it
will contain phrases like "the Helsinki Man" without having made
clear if that means remembering being a man in Helsinki or if it
means a man currently experiencing Helsinki.
Unfair remark. I told you since the begining that the prediction is
asked to the Helsinki man, when he is in Helsinki, and the
confirmation of success of the prediction is asked to each copies
(that is, the helsinki man, when he arrive at Moscow). Only you have
added ambiguity on this. It is already clean and clear in all my
papers, that you insist not reading. The pronouns used are entirely
clarified by the 1p and 3p distinctions, that only you eliminate and
then complains about ambiguities.
> if I interview a sample of copies, the vast majority will confess
not finding any prediction algorithm
That's because no known algorithm can figure out exactly what the
question was.
The algorithm is only asked to find a predictive algorithm on its
first person experience. We already know that even if it does not
know the protocol, the majority of the copies answers will be "No
algorithm found" or "random" or "white noise". And if the algorithm is
Löbian, he can even justifies that there is no algorithm for
predicting the first person experience in self-duplication experience.
You are only insulting yourself, John. You convince everybody only of
your bad faith, or of your inability to dovetail a little bit in the
mind of the two copies, enough to see that one will write "W & ~M",
and the other will write "M & ~W" in the respective diaries.
if your read the next steps 4, 5, ... you should understand that we
are lead to a precise and non ambiguous mathematical problem, albeit
difficult. Then the thesis itself is mainly a partial solution to that
problem.
Bruno
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
