On 5/4/2015 10:17 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 5 mai 2015 01:17, "meekerdb" <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> a
écrit :
>
> On 5/4/2015 3:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 5 mai 2015 00:08, "meekerdb" <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
a écrit :
>> >
>> > On 5/4/2015 11:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 5/4/2015 12:31 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2015-05-04 9:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
<mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>>:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 4 May 2015 at 17:14, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
<mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The initial point that we were making was that copying at the
quantum level
>> >>>>>>> of substitution is not possible, in principle. Accidental copies in
another
>> >>>>>>> universe are not "deliberate but surreptitious" copies. They are
irrelevant
>> >>>>>>> to the argument.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> You implied that if you did not know about the copy because it was not
>> >>>>>> prepared deliberately that would make a difference, but I don't see
>> >>>>>> why it should.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The point of Step 3, as I understand it, is that we know the set-up: we know
that we are to be copied at the appropriate substitution level and duplicated -- at two
different locations. Chance duplicates do not fit the criteria and are irrelevant to the
comp hypothesis.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It's a though experiment... so the duplicates do fit the criteria by
definition.. you even gave it here "we are to be copied at the appropriate substitution
level and duplicated"... step 0 again, is that it is possible... so, if you reject step
0, there is no point to use that as an argument against further steps... you already
have rejected the premiss, so any deductive steps based on it have already been rejected
by you as you reject step 0.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Unknown (and unknowable) copies would not produce any first person
indeterminancy. FPI requires that you know there is a duplicate that you could be.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Otherwise you are certain where you will end up.
>>
>> If they are more than one continuation, weither you know it or not is
irrelevant.
>
>
> Then that's third person indeterminancy.
What? It's first person indeterminacy, because you have more than one future first
person perspective. Are you playing with words now?
Dunno, seems like a semantic quirk. What does first person indeterminancy mean except
that one is uncertain about one's future. The fact that someone else knows there's a copy
seems to me to be the definition of third person indeterminancy.
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/d/optout.
