@ Bruno

 [John]  >> >> Bruno Marchal​ is correct, that is not ambiguous, ​that is a 
flat out logical contradiction.


[Bruno] >> Where? 

The problem arises because if "You" = "person who remembers Helsinki" then you 
ought to be able replace one for the other without truth values altering. Thats 
just logic 101.

But, according to you one of these two phrases is false:

"{You} will see only one city" <--- true according to Bruno.

"{person who remembers Helsinki} will see only one city". <--- false according 
to Bruno.

Since all you have done is replace one phrase for another you have to accept 
that those phrases mean something different, otherwise where does the 
difference in truth value come from?  "you" can not equal "person who remembers 
Helsinki", otherwise you are contradicting yourself. You are saying it is true 
and false that "you will see only one city". 

This has nothing to do with 1-p, 3-p, p-p confusions but is a direct 
consequence of how you define your terms, Bruno.

From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 19:52:22 +0200


On 24 Jul 2015, at 19:03, John Clark wrote:On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:11 AM, 
Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​​>> ​Yes, after the duplication but before the door of the duplicating chamber 
​is opened John Clark may have a hunch that he (at this point the personal 
pronoun is not ambiguous because although there are 2 bodies they are identical 
so there is still just one John Clark) will see Moscow when the door is opened 
and make a bet. One of the John Clarks will win the bet and one will not; it 
can never be determined if "he" won the bet because as soon as the door was 
opened the 2 bodies were no longer identical, they had different memories, so 
that personal pronoun becomes ambiguous.   
​> ​That contradict the fact that you have agreed that both copies are the 
Helsinki guy.
​After the bodies are duplicated but before the door is opened there are 2 
bodies but still only one Helsinki guy​ ​because they are identical, ​when the 
door is opened they see different things and thus diverge. They both remain the 
Helsinki guy​ because they have equally vivid memories of being a guy in 
Helsinki, but they are no longer each other ​because they diverged as soon as 
the door was opened. I understand how that state of affairs would be strange, 
but please explain how it is contradictory.  

There is nothing contradictory.
On the contrary, that is a good explanation why P(W v M) = 1, when W and M 
refer to the self-localization experience. As you said, the experience diverge. 
For one Helsinki guy the measurement is W, and so write W in the diary, and for 
the other the measurement gives M, and he write M in his diary. Both agree that 
they could not have predicted that result, except by betting "W v M", which is 
undermined but true at both place, and obviously the experience "W and M" is, 
well, not even an experience at all. It is half an experience, and half an 
intellectual belief.



 ​> ​There is no ambiguity, you are both guys.
​"You" is both guys. 
Intellectually. The experience have diverged, The outcome of the 
self-localization are different. From now on, you are either a guy living in 
Moscow having a doppelganger in Washington, OR a guy living in Washington 
having a doppelganger in Moscow. You don't become a mysterious entity 
experiencing both place simultaneously. Both got one bit of information from 
the push+self-localization measurement.




One guy will be in Moscow. One guy will be in Washington. But "you" will see 
only one city.
yes, in Helsinki, you can be sure of that/ You push on a button, open a door, 
and see only one city, and get a cup of coffee.
You have guessed right the other day. P(coffee) = 1 because "coffee" is 
satisfied in both place. But "W or M" is also satisfied in both place, and "W 
and M" is false in both place, as W and M refers to the incompatible experience 
of seeing Moscow and seeing Washington from the direct first person experience. 
Indeed, only the mysterious entity experiencing both places could wriite W and 
M, by the definition of the FIRST person experience denoted by W and M.



 ​ Bruno Marchal​ is correct, that is not ambiguous, ​that is a flat out 
logical contradiction. 

Where? it is W & M which is a flat out contradiction, when W and M refers to 
the first person experience. One diary contains M, the other contain W. None 
contain W and M. I hope you are OK with this.



I said it before I'll say it again, if Bruno Marchal​ wants the words "you will 
only see one city" to be true Bruno Marchal​ is going to have to change the 
meaning of the personal pronoun "you" ; 
I don't have to change the meaning. Right at the start, the question is about 
the expected outcome of a first person experience. You agree that there is a 
divergence, so I guess you understood that one write in the diary W, and the 
other write M. Those are what makes the divergence to exist. I keep the meaning 
of "you", and you are in both city, but the point is that in both city you see 
only once city, so the bet P(one city) = 1 was correct, and P(I see two cities 
at once when opening the box) = 0. The prediction is on the personal experience 
of what is seen when opening the door. It is NOT on the third person 
localization of those experiences.


somebody who remembers being a man in Helsinki just won't work.
It works perfectly well. After the duplication, I interviewed all the guys who 
remember having been the guy pushing on the button in Helsinki, and they all 
told me that indeed, as predicted, the self-localizaton measurement gave as a 
result only once city. P(one city) was equal as P(coffe), for the exact same 
reason: that is what is lived by all the continuations.
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.
                                          

-- 
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.

Reply via email to