On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> In one case the meaning of the question "what will *you* see" is >> guaranteed to be perfectly clear by the very laws of physics, in the other >> case the question is complete gibberish. And that's a difference that >> makes no difference?! >> > > > > In either case, it's not perfectly clear, and it's not complete gibberish > either. > > In many worlds, the question of who 'you' are as the world bifurcates in > nearly infinite ways >
Bifurcates means split in two, but never mind. > > > is anything but clear, and subject to the same concerns that are raised in > single-world duplication experiments. > No. In Many Worlds both before and after the world splits the meaning of the word "you" is the same, it refers to the one and only chunk of matter that the laws of physics allow a third person observer, or even allows Terren Suydam himself to observe, that is organized in a Terrensuydamian way. But with duplicating chambers there could be billions of things that the word "you" could refer to and they all could be easily observed by anyone. So the question "what will you see after duplication?" has no unique answer nor would there be any reason to expect it to because "you" has been duplicated. > > > You need to stay with the referent of the word "I" I agree, so when describing the latest variation on the thought experiment why not simply do away with personal pronouns like "I" and use the referent instead? > > > > what you're hung up on is the resolvability of a word in a language, a > referent. > I am indeed hung up on that because that one word can and does hide an enormous amount of illogical thought. A logical answer can not be given to a illogical question. > > > This is an epistemological concern, nothing more. > Yes, the nature of personal identity is of epistemological concern. > > > Imagine that you are duplicated, and in Moscow, there is a dead cat in the > duplication chamber you appear in, and in Washington there is a live cat in > there > [ ...] > Over the last several years I've been over this time after time after time after time, in the above they would then have different memories and thus diverge into different people. > > The key to understanding step 3 and the first-person-indeterminacy is, > well, the first-person. > *THE* first-person has meaning in the present and so do personal pronouns, by "present" I mean before you step into the duplicating chamber or in Many Worlds before things split in two. But after that there is no such thing as, *THE* first-person, there is only *A* first-person, and that is true with both Many Worlds and duplicating chambers. But in both can't I look back into the past and see a single chain of events leading uniquely to me? Yes, but in both many worlds and duplicating chambers there are other unique chains leading to "me". That's why the word "I" only has meaning in the present by looking back to the past and never to the future. But how can that be, in our everyday like we talk all the time about what "I" will do tomorrow and it doesn't lead to logical absurdities, why is that? Three reasons: 1) Our everyday world doesn't have duplicating chambers. 2) The Many Worlds idea might not be true (I have a hunch it is but I've been wrong before). 3) Even if Many Worlds is true John Clark can pretend it is not and no practical difficulties will follow because there is nothing that the the laws allow John Clark to observe will contradict John Clark's claim of exclusive ownership of the word "I". But if duplicating chambers exist the word "I" causes enormous practical difficulties. > > > You need to stay with the referent of the word "I", > As I said before, use that referent rather than "I" and that will happen automatically, so why not just do it? Because then there would be no place to hide sloppy thinking. > > > Until you start taking the first-person perspective seriously, your > justifications amount to a swing and a miss. > If something doesn't exist then I don't take it seriously and *THE* first-person perspective makes sense only when looking to the past. > > > So far the only thing you've articulated as a difference between those > scenarios is the referent of a word in a language, > If everything is so clear then just use that referent and dump those goddamn personal pronouns! > > > a difference that disappears when you adopt the first-person perspective. > Not just that but everything disappears when *THE* first-person perspective is adopted because when looking toward the future *THE* first person perspective does not exist; things are unique when looking to the past not toward the future. 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.
