On 15 July 2016 at 08:28, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 7/14/2016 2:25 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Thursday, 14 July 2016, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> On 13/07/2016 11:36 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> On 11 Jul 2016, at 13:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On 11/07/2016 9:31 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> *Holiday Exercise:* >> >> A guy undergoes the Washington Moscow duplication, starting again from >> Helsinki. >> Then in Moscow, but not in Washington, he (the one in Moscow of course) >> undergoes a similar Sidney-Beijing duplication. >> >> I write P(H->M) the probability in H to get M. >> >> In Helsinki, he tries to evaluate his chance to get Sidney. >> >> With one reasoning, he (the H-guy) thinks that P(H-M) = 1/2, and that >> P(M-S) = 1/2, and so conclude (multiplication of independent probability) >> that P(H-S) = 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4. >> >> But with another reasoning, he thinks that the duplications give globally >> a triplication, leading eventually to a copy in W, a copy in S and a copy >> in B, and so, directly conclude P(H-S) = 1/3. >> >> So, is it 1/4 or 1/3 ? >> >> >> Neither. The probability that the guy starting from Helsinki gets to >> Sydney is unity. >> >> >> Try to convince the guy who gets to Beijing, or the one who stayed in >> Washington. He knows that the probability evaluated in Helsinki was not >> P(Sidney) = 1. >> >> >> We start with John Clark in Helsinki, so P(JC ~ H) = 1. By construction, >> after the duplication and so on, P(JC ~ W) = P(JC ~ S) = P(JC ~ B) = 1. (I >> use '~' as a shorthand for 'in' or 'sees'.) JC in Helsinki knows the >> protocol, so he can easily see that these are the correct probabilities. >> So, as I said, the probability that the guy starting from Helsinki gets to >> Sydney is unity. Any other interpretation of this scenario involves an >> implicit appeal to dualism -- there is "one true JC" that goes through >> these duplications, and he can only ever end up in just one place. >> > > That is the source of the effect being discussed: JC and all of us > feel that personal identity only transfers to the one true JC, despite the > evidence of all the other clearly visible JC's. This is because "I" am > the person who has my experiences > > > Which only means that "I who sees Washington." is different from "I who > sees Moscow." >
Yes, a straightforward fact; it does not involve "an implicit appeal to dualism" as Bruce said. > , and I am not telepathically linked to my copies. > > > But you have to be linked by memories to your past self, otherwise you > will have no identity. > The link with past selves is somewhat stronger, in that if their experiences had been different my memories and current experiences would also be different, whereas with the other copies their experiences cannot directly affect me. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
