>> Two mutually exclusive first person experiences cannot be a first person >> experience.
Obviously. if I could experience M and W simultaneously they would not be exclusive by definition . If anyone besides you thinks I would argue any different they should look again. I argued that in worlds with duplication machines I can expect my future to involve numerous mutually exclusive perspectives. That isn't the same. The probability of me seeing Moscow from a first person perspective after duplication is governed by two things which have nothing to do with 1p or 3p perspectives: whether or not, prior to duplication, I am justified in thinking the person post duplication will be me ... and your set up insists upon this.... and whether at least one duplicate will be in Moscow and your set up also guarantees this. Neither of these statements are dependent on perspective. Tegmark's bird and frog would agree on both. But nevertheless, it follows directly from these two statements that the probability of me seeing Moscow would be 1. Its just guaranteed by your set up and the way you define your terms. The specter of chance in step 3 stems from the idea of there being 1 person and two cities. But that is an incomplete description of the set up. There is 1 person and then that person in each city. You are not betting on a flicked coin you are placing bets on red and black and then spinning a roulette wheel. Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:02:58 -0400 Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark From: johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Two mutually exclusive first person experiences cannot be a first person experience. They can if the first person experience has been duplicated because that's what the word "duplicated" means.But of course ICT1PWT3P, > So I guess this is just the traditional John Clark's confusion between the 1-1 and 3-1 views. Yep, as you've pointed out many many MANY times, all the problems with your theory and all the mysteries of the universe can be solved by ICT3PWT1P. > To explain the error here, sometimes I imagine a guy who win a price: going to Mars, but the law of his country forbid self-annihilation, and so he can only be copied and pasted on Mars. Why is it that in all such thought experiments it's always the original's viewpoint that is followed and never the copies? > "--No problem" he said, I expect to live both experiences No problem, I expect to live both experiences provided that "I" means whoever remembers being in Helsinki right now. And what else could "I" mean? > he go in the copy machine, is read, and pasted on Mars. But the "copy" on Mars is disappointed, because when he opened the door and sees only Mars. in front on me on Earth, So he goes into the copy machine, is read, and pasted on Mars. And the "copy" on Mars is not disappointed when "he" (somebody who remembers being in Helsinki) opened the door and "he" sees only Mars and no sign of Earth because that is exactly what "he"expected to happen. If Bruno Marchal does not like that fact then Bruno Marchal is going to need to change the meaning of "he". > He asked: did the copy occur? We told him that "yes" his copy is on Mars. He asked: did the original survive? We told him that "yes" his original is on Earth. > he realized that the one staying on Erath, will just not experience the adventure on Mars. Not being a complete imbecile the copy realized that the original on Earth will just not experience the adventure on Mars. > He can intellectually conceive that he survived on Mars through that doppelganger, but that is a meagre consolation Although that is what "he" expected to happen when "he" diverged because that's what "diverged" means. > If he repeat that experience, the probability that he [...] A example of personal pronoun addiction. > See above. Why? > Let us read the diary. Why? > In Helsinki he wrote "I expect to have both experiences in the first person sense". And Mr.I did indeed have both experiences in the first person sense, for proof of that just ask the two people who call themselves Mr. I. > In Moscow, well, he sees only Moscow Another example of personal pronoun addiction. > and so conclude that he was wrong. And John Clark concludes that "he" doesn't know what "he" means. > (even if he sees a video showing that he has successfully been reconstituted in Washington; but he cannot feel the W experience Not true, for proof just ask a Mr. He. A Mr. He who says "I feel the W experience" can always be found. > even Clark admits, there are two streams of consciousness, Well of course there are two streams of consciousness after the duplication because HE has been duplicated and that's what "duplicated means. But of course ICT1PWT3P, 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. -- 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.
