On 18 Jul 2016, at 23:38, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> The Helsinki guy now that he will survive,
Only if there is a person or if there are persons who remember
being the Helsinki guy.
No problem.
> and that he cannot have the simultaneous first person
experience
That's right Bruno, keep sweeping those foggy thoughts and
fractured logic under the "he" colored personal pronoun rug.
No problem, we agree on who "he" is at all times. "he" is both copies,
as both remember having been in Helsinki. The FPI comes from the fact
that alhtough he is both, he (both guy) can only feel to be one of them.
> There is no such thing as THE first person experience,
there is only A first person experience.
> "The" refers to that experience of seeing only one city
and not the other
Two people not one have the experience of seeing only one
city and not the other. So which ONE is "THE"?
Both in the 3-1 view.
One of them with the 1-1 view.
That's why in Helsinki, we got an indeterminacy.
Bruno, to be meaningful language in a world that has personal
pronoun duplicating machines just can't be used in the same way its
used in our world that doesn't have such devices.
>> 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.
> Excellent. Both Washington AND Moscow are accessible equally.
Equally accessible to the Helsinki man yes, the probability of the
Helsinki man seeing Moscow is 100% and the probability of the
Helsinki man seeing Washington is 100%.
That is immediately refute by one copy after the duplication.
> That is why P = 1/2 is the most plausible candidate in this
situation.
John Clark will say if P=1/2 is correct or not as soon as Bruno
Marchal explains exactly what P is supposed to be a probability
of. Until then is is neither correct nor incorrect, it's just
gibberish
The probability of seeing W. Or of seeing M, for the H-guy.
> Refutation: he knows perfectly well that after pushing the
button, he will feel to be in either Moscow, or Washington, and
never in both cities
"He" just walked into a "he" duplicating machine so there is
absolutely no contradiction between:
1) He will see either Moscow, or Washington and never in both cities
2) John Clark (aka The Helsinki Man) will see both Moscow AND
Washington.
There is a contradiction if we identify the 3p and the 1p view, but
indeed, there is no contradiction once we take the 1-3 difference into
account. That is why "1)" leads to the indeterminacy.
> You forget again to put yourself at the place of both copies
Are you sure you really want me to do that? If so I'd have to
conclude that I will see both cities at the same time.
But that contradicts the "1)", or you just insist not taking the 1-1-
view and the 3-1 view difference.
> No observer at all will have the 1p experience
There is no such thing as "THE 1p" in a world with 1p
duplicating machines.
That is contradicted by what copies says. In helsinki he imagined to
get that 1p view, and both concur.
> of seeing both cities.
The Helsinki Man will see both cities.
Yes, but you will not become a monster with two heads. You will become
one of them, or you bring back again that telepathic ability of yours.
> The duplicating machine cannot introduce a telepathic link
which would be mandatory for having an experience of both cities at
once,
On no, now we're back with the idiotic telepathy crap!
Exactly, but *you* are the one needing it to say that after the
duplication you see the two cities, which is never the case assuming
computationalism and non telepathy.
> indeed the probability that JKC see city X is 100%, from the
3-1 view. But from this it does not follow that all copies will see
both cities.
All the copies don't need to see both cities for JKC to see both
cities if JKC means the person who remembers being in Helsinki.
And what else on earth could JKC mean?
The question is about the 1p seeing a city, not on the intellectual
belief about the 3-1 description.
> You forget to consult the diary of both copies, who both
testify that they both see only one city.
I haven't forgotten that, but you seem to have forgotten that 1+1
=2
> You don't refute step 3, you just ignore it.
I've long long ago forgotten what step 3 is, but I do try to
ignore gibberish.
> What can the Helsinki guy write in his personal diary that
the guy in Helsinki expect to live.
The diary says "I expect that after I walk into the I duplicating
machine I, that is to say the person who remember writing these
words, will see Washington and at the same time I, that is to say
the person who remember writing these words, will see
Moscow".
Which is a contradiction, or a 3-1 description. QED.
Doing many times the same wrong argument will not make it correct.
Just incorrect, and more and more boring. You persist to identify 1p
and 3p when it suits you.
When we check later when its all over everybody involved agrees the
prediction turned out to be correct because everybody involved knows
that thanks to the person duplicating machine there is more than
one person who remembers writing those words.
Yes, but here you confuse knowledge and belief, which is akin to the
1p/3p confusion. The question is on the 1p knowledge, not the 1p
belief on the 3p or 3-1p situation. Below too.
You don't even succeed in faking not understanding what happens. You
just change the question asked, and you make the original question
senseless by forgetting the difference between 1p and 3p.
Bruno
> When you say "John Clark will see 2 cities", you mean, taken
together
Obviously, 2 beings have an equal right to call themselves John
Clark and a equal right to call themselves the Helsinki man. "What
one and only one city will you end up seeing after you step into the
you duplicating machine?" is not question, it's just a string of
words with a question mark at the end. If I'm wrong and it really is
a question then answer it, after it was all over what one and only
one city did "you" end up seeing? Was it Washington or Moscow?
> You don't seem to try to refute an argument.
Because it's not a good argument, it's not even a bad argument,
it's personal pronoun laden gibberish. We're talking about a world
with personal pronoun duplicating machines in it and in such a world
personal pronouns can not be used in the same way as they are in a
world like ours which hasn't invented personal pronoun duplicating
machines yet. So stop talking about "he" or "you" or "I" or "me"
or "THE 1p"; those words don't mean anything anymore.
> You seem to change the question so as to avoid the answer
I change the gibberish to see if I can find a real question
lurking in there someplace, I haven't had a lot of luck
> To sum up: confusion between the 3p and the 1p, again.
And the confusion will never end because in a world with personal
pronoun duplicating machines in it there is no such thing as "THE
1p". Confusion is the only intelligent response to gibberish.
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.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
