On 27 Jun 2015, at 22:44, John Clark wrote:
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.
In the MWI also.
Imagine step 3 with the condition that the two reconstitution remains
isolated. In that case your point here forces you to accept the P=1/2,
and that is enough to get the step seven.
> 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?
Because the referent are ambiguous. The "1-I" is never ambiguous, as
it is the person(s) I discuss with.
The one who tell me in Helsinki that he is sure that he will see a
unique next city, and the two people I interview in W and in M and who
confirms that prediction.
>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.
OK, but we have agreed that both are the Helsinki person too, and that
is what is used to get the FPI. If not, you are claiming implicitly
that you die at step 3.
> 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.
So you agree now that the FPI problem is the same in MW and comp, but
that was the point.
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.
