On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >>> > The better prediction was "W v M and I have no clue which one". > >> > The better prediction about WHAT? > > > > About the first person experience > There is no such thing as *THE* first person experience, there is only A first person experience. > > > that is accessible to the candidate in Helsinki. > Both Moscow AND Washington are accessible because there are people in BOTH Washington and Moscow who remember being the Helsinki Man and neither city is more favored because both memories are equally vivid. >> >> 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 you are already abandoning computationalism. > Bullshit. C omputationalism can't make predictions about gibberish and neither can anything else. > > With computationalism, the guy in Helsinki knows that he will survive, > The guy in Helsinki knows that the guy in Helsinki will survive, but the guy in Helsinki knows nothing about "he". > > > and that he will feel being experiencing the direct seeing of only one > city. > That's right Bruno, keep sweeping those foggy thoughts and fractured logic under the "he" colored personal pronoun rug. > > We don't ask which one will have THE 1p view, > Because there is no such thing as *THE* 1p view. > > > given that we know that both will live A 1p view. > > But we know that the two 1p view are logically incompatible. > No, it would be logically incompatible only if people duplicating machines did not exist. For heaven's sake m aking those two views logically compatible is the very thing that makes a people duplicating machine a people duplicating machine ! It's what they do! >> >> >> 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? > > > > > The next mental state of the guy in Helsinki, from his/her first point of > view. > That should be "states" not "state" because people duplicating machines are involved and ensuring that there are at least 2 such states is what a people duplicating machine does. If it didn't then it wouldn't be a people duplicating machine . There is nothing paradoxical or logically inconsistent in having 2 answers to that question, we just find it odd because up to now our technology hasn't been good enough to build a people duplicating machine, but there is no law of logic or physics that says it can't be done or that odd things can't happen. >> >> >> All 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%. >> > > > > Only in the 3p view. > > What the hell does that mean? > > > > You agree that for the cities which are not X, the guy will not see X, > > and so refute already what you say here. > I neither agree nor disagree because I have no idea who "*THE* guy" is. >> >> 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. > > > > > That is why to get the prediction, the guy in Helsinki has to put itself > in the place of all copies (mentally), and then just take into account the > impossibility of the 1p-feeling of seeing the two cities at once. > There is no such thing as *THE* 1p-feeling. > > So just get the conclusion from this. If the two people remember having > wondering about what city they will end up, by using computaionalism, they > know that any specific city prediction will be refuted by one guy, > People duplicating machines make it logically impossible for just one guy to refute the prediction that John Clark the Helsinki Man will see 2 cities, otherwise it wouldn't be a people duplicating machine. > > The answer is crystal clear: it is: " Washington or Moscow, and I can't be > more precise than that". > The answer may be crystal clear but that's not the problem. To hell with the answer, John Clark want's to know what the question was. > > >>> >> >>> 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"? > > > > John Clark. That was easy. > Then the answer is also easy, John Clark will see 2 cities. If in doubt of that then just go to both cities and ask the person in both cities who calls himself John Clark how many cities they see, add up the numbers they give and see if they equal 2. I think they will because I'm pretty sure that 1+1=2, but as a mathematician maybe you should check my arithmetic. > > the correct prediction is 1. >> >> > >> >> >> Tell me exactly what the prediction was > > > > The prediction was "I will see only one city, among W v M. > That's right Bruno, keep sweeping those foggy thoughts and fractured logic under the "I" colored personal pronoun rug. > > >>> >> >>> 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. > > > > > All John Clark will see only one city. > I know you're a mathematician and all, but are you sure that 1+1=1? >> >> >> 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? > > > > > We have testimony from John Clark that John Clark saw Moscow and not > Washington, > And we have testimony from John Clark that John Clark saw Washington and not Moscow and thanks to people duplicating machines there is no logical inconsistency in that, and the prediction was about how many cities John Clark would see not about how many John Clark wouldn't see. So if Moscow and Washington are 2 cities and John Clark saw both of them then John Clark saw 2 cities. 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.
