On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> >> after the door is opened there is no such thing as "*the* 1-view". > > > > > I have explained why this is directly refuted by all copies. > So is *THE* 1-view a view of Moscow or of Washington? > > > a natural confusion between 3-1 views and 1-views. > Confusion naturally arises because Bruno Marchal can not explain what the " 3-1 views " is supposed to mean without lots of personal pronouns that are all rendered meaningless in a world with people duplicating machines. > > > See below for more. > Why? There is little of substance below. > > >>> >> >>> they all feel to be different from the others >> >> > > >> > Yes, and that's exactly why there are > 7.1 billion 1ps and not just one. > > > > Sure, in the 3-1 view. But > [...] > To hell with the "but", unless you're a solipsist and believe there are 7.1 billion zombies on the Earth not people then the are 7.1 billion 1ps on this planet, and there are no buts about it. > > see above. > Why? There is little of substance above. >> >> >> Those damn diaries again! The diaries are useless after the duplication >> unless the person who wrote them could be unambiguously identified and you >> can't do that; > > > > > False. (Easy exercise, done many times). > Somehow I missed that so please do that exercise one more time and point to *THE* one and only one person who wrote the diary now that the duplication has been made. Or if you think pointing is impolite just tell me if "he" lives in Washington or Moscow. >> >> >> There is no purely logical reason to make coffee or not to make coffee, >> but >> people who enjoy being alive >> and >> are good >> at >> hypothesizing what the future will be >> >> like are more likely to pass more of their genes into the next generation >> than people who don't enjoy life and aren't good at making plans for the >> future. So you prepared that coffee because you have some of those genes. > > > > You make my point, > Glad to be of service. > > > and explicitly contradict yours. > Where? Show me! > > Search on "Searle" in the archive for more. > Why should I search for more idiocy? Searle is a moron and his Chinese room is imbecilic. >> >> What remains un-predicted? > > > > > The personal experience that the candidate in Helsinki can expect to live. > If The Helsinki Man's name is Ed and if Ed is logical and if Ed expects to be duplicated then Ed would expect that there would not be just one answer to that question there would be two because that's what happens when people are duplicated. Yes that seems unusual but it's not illogical and it's only unusual because we haven't seen it yet , and we haven't seen it yet for technological reasons and not for scientific, logical or philosophical reasons. A few decades from now this entire debate will seem as quaint as a butterchurn. > > By reasoning, and using comp, > I never use "comp" and never will until I know what it means and I don't and neither do you. > >> > >> >> >> >> And ask if you will be that M guy or that W guy. > > > > >> > You you and you! Even at this late stage Bruno Marchal just can't stop > using that god damn ambiguous personal pronoun! > > > > Because it was just made clear that the question was asked in Helsinki, > and you have recently, and more than once, accepted that the pronoun was > not ambiguous in Helsinki (i.e. before the duplication). > Yes, but to confirm or reject the prediction THE one and only "you" must be found and interviewed *AFTER* the duplication. It would be easy to find Bruno Marchal after the duplication and easy to find Ed, but it would be impossible to find "you" because people duplicating machines have made that personal pronoun ambiguous. And that is exactly why Bruno Marchal loves personal pronouns, only by liberally using them can Bruno Marchal state a ambiguous theory of personal identity. > > the ambiguity of pronouns is in your head only, as most of us have shown > to you more than once. > Then prove me wrong by giving The Helsinki Man a name and stop using those stupid pronouns! But of course Bruno Marchal will never do that. > > I was in Helsinki, and did not know if I would have become the W or the M > guy, > And even after the duplication "I" still doesn't know if "I" is the W guy or the M guy because that personal pronoun has become meaningless by people duplicating machines, and that is why Bruno Marchal loves them so much, ambiguous words come in very handy in describing ambiguous ideas. > > > given that I become both of them in the 3-1 description of the protocol. > But unfortunately nobody, including Bruno Marchal , knows what the 3-1 description is supposed to mean. > > > Yet, after pushing the button, I get the personal, private, and non > justifiable feeling that I am the one in W, > and not the one, in M > And "I" gets the personal, private, and non justifiable feeling that "I" am the one in M and not the one in W. Use the man's name and STOP USING PRONOUNS!! > > just tell me now if you have grasped the difference between the 3p and the > 3-1p *and* the difference between the 3-1p and the 1p. > John Clark has not grasped the difference and does not believe that Bruno Marchal has either. > >> Nobody knows if it's confirmed or not because nobody knows what the 3-1 >> view is. > > > > > I have just explained it in the post of yesterday. > A explanation filled to the brim with personal pronouns and thus useless. Drop the peepee and the pronouns and give the poor man a name, how about "Ed", it's no harder to type than "he". > > >> >> >> but is refuted for both the W-guy and the H-guy. > > > >> > The W-guy and the M-guy can't refute anything because the prediction > wasn't made about them, > > > > The question was about them, as we have agreed that they are both the > H-guy. > A camel is a mammal but a mammal is not a camel, a dog is a mammal but a dog is not a camel. Both the W man set and the M man set are larger sets than the H man set, they have all the elements of the H man set plus more. > > The computationalist indeterminacy does not assume Quantum Mechanics. > I know. > > > It is subject of controverse in QM (cf "God does not play with dice", or > "Does it?"). > Quantum indeterminacy was controversial 75 years ago, but not today. > > > With Everett, the QM indeterminacy is arguably reduced to the comp > indeterminacy, > I don't care, I'm not interested in "comp" anything. >> >> and of the Godel/Turing type discovered 90 years ago. > > > > > The FPI has just nothing to do with the definition of that type of > indeterminacies. > I know, FPI is silly but Godel/Turing indeterminacy is not. 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.
