On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> >> Which turned out to be the better prediction, Moscow or Washington? And >> was the prediction about John Clark or was it about some mysterious figure >> named "you"? > > > > > The better prediction was "W v M and I have no clue which one". > The better prediction about WHAT? Even after the experiment is over nobody knows what was the better prediction because nobody knows who exactly the prediction was supposed to be about. >> >> >> Then asking the Helsinki Person "what city will *you* see?" or "how many >> cities will *you *see?" is a nonsense question because this is a world >> with people duplicating machines. > > > > > Yes, but it should be obvious to anyone understand the difference between > the 1p and the 3p views > Then answer the question! After the experiment was over what ONE city turned out to be the correct answer, Moscow or Washington? If you can't answer that question then it's not a experiment or even a thought experiment and so it's not science and assigning a probability to anything concerning it is just ridiculous. As for being obvious, if modern physics and mathematics has taught us anything it's that common sense is not always a reliable guide, and a lot of obvious things would not be true in a world with people duplicating machines. We didn't evolve in a environment where things move close to the speed of light so out intuition in that area is poor, common sense tells us that Einstein's relativity just can'r be true, but it is. > > > When the H-guy pushes on the button in Helsinki, he knows with certainty > (assuming computationalism and the protocol and the default hypotheses) > that such a guy will find itself in a box, in front of a door, behind which > only one city will be seen (in the 1p view). > If after it's all over you can't name what one city "he" ended up seeing then "*the*" 1p view does not exist, only "*a*" 1p view does. >> >> >> you're interested in "THE 1p view" but as you just pointed out in a >> world with people duplicating machine "THE 1p view" is meaningless, there >> is only "A 1p view". > > > > > Exactly, that is the root of the 1p indeterminacy. > We agree, although not very profound it is certainly true that a meaningless question (like which ONE will have the THE 1p view) has no answer, and that is the root cause of "1p indeterminacy". > >> > >> You are asking about what one and only one city was seen > > > > > The question concerns the future, or the next state. > The next state of what? I assume you mean the next state of something that remembers being in Helsinki, if so then there is certainly no law of physics that demands only one state can meet those specifications. If you means something else then I repeat my question, the next state of what? And please, no personal pronouns with no clear referent in the answer. >> >> John Clark will see two cities. > > > > > That is the 3-1-view. > All I know is that John Clark in his 1-view sees Moscow and John Clark in his 1-view sees Washington and I have no idea what Mr. 3-1-view sees. > > As you are John Clark, you need to go out of your body to conceive it. But > to complete the thought experience, you need to re-integrate your body > after the duplication. > OK even better, after the re-integration I have vivid memories of BOTH Washington and Moscow and so I John K Clark from John K Clark's 1p ended up seeing Washington *and* Moscow. >> >> >> There are 2 "1-views", and Bruno Marchal demands to know which *ONE* and >> only *ONE* *you* will see, and that demand is pure gibberish. > > > > > You seem to be unable to understand that despite there are many 1-views > obtained, all the 1-views feel to be one individual in a specific city. > So what? A ll the 1-views that saw all those cities have an equal right to call themselves John Clark, so the answer to the question "what is the probability John Clark will see city X?" is 100%. And if you ask just one John Clark how many cities he saw and he just says only one that does NOT disprove the statement "John Clark will see 2 cities" because there is still another John Clark out there that you haven't asked yet. > > By computationalism, you know that you will survive, and that you can only > feel to survive as a unique individual in > > only one city. You *know* that in advance. > Ahhhhh, more duplicate people and more duplicate personal pronouns with no clear referent! > > > remembering that the question was about that "future personal memory". > I'm not the one who has forgotten that in the future 2 people not just one will have memories of being in Helsinki, and 2 people not just one will remember wondering about what city they will end up in; I think you're the one who has forgotten about that and that's why you call *both* of these people "he" and that is why demanding to know what one and only one city "he" will see is ridiculous. > > Given that the guy knows he will survive, and that he will feel to be in > one city, the question is "what city will be seen after pushing on the > button". > If you can't tell me what the answer turned out to be (and you can't because the question is incoherent) then you should stop calling it a thought experiment and call it for what it is, a thought muddle. > > > The prediction is about one future first person experience. > It's not a prediction if nobody knows who the prediction is about. > > > as we have agree that all John Clark are John Clark, but after the > duplication, each John Clark will see only one city. So if the question is > "how many city will you see", > Bruno Marchal uses "John Clark" 3 times and then sneaks in a "he" in the most important place as if nobody would notice. Who the hell is "he"? > > > the correct prediction is 1. > Tell me exactly what the prediction was and more important who it was about and after the experiment is over I'll say if that was the correct answer or not. Until then it's neither correct nor incorrect, it's just word salad. > > > after completion of the experience, all John Clark agrees to be personally > in front of only one city. > Yes, and that in no way implies that John Clark saw only one city, in fact it implies the opposite. We have testimony from John Clark that John Clark saw Moscow and have testimony from John Clark that John Clark saw Washington. Therefore the conclusion is that the correct answer to the question "how many cities will John Clark see?" is 2. Where is the indeterminacy in that? > > > The problem is not the pronoun. > Of course the problem is pronouns! If it were not Bruno Marchal could end the controversy by simply stop using pronouns, but if that were done there would be no place to hide philosophical confusion and illogical thinking. > > you get the correct 3-1 view, and then forget to just ask all the copies > about the verification of the prediction made in Helsinki, > I forget to just ask all the copies ?! !I'm the guy who forgot?? Bruno Marchal hears one person say "I see only one city" and claims that even in a world of people duplicating machines that proves John Clark sees only one city! 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
