On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> >> That's right Bruno, keep sweeping those foggy thoughts and fractured >> logic under the "he" colored personal pronoun rug. > > > > > No problem, If there really is no problem why does Bruno Marchal refuse to to use Mr. He's name? Because the theory would fall apart that' s why. > > > we agree on who "he" is at all times."he" is both copies, as both > remember having been in Helsinki. Then answer just one question, how many people remember being in Helsinki? > > The FPI comes from the fact that alhtough he is both, he (both guy) can > only feel to be one of them. "THE FPI" comes from nothing because in a world with FPI duplicating machines "THE FPI" does not exist. >> >> >> 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. > > What the hell is the difference between "3-1 view" and "3 view"? > > > One of them with the 1-1 view. > What the hell is the difference between " THE 1 -1 view" and " THE 1-view"? And which ONE of the TWO did it turn out to have "THE 1-1 view" , w as it Moscow or Washington? At least with the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment when it's all over and the box is opened the state of the cat's health is known, but we NEVER find out what ONE city "he" ended up seeing which means assigning probabilities to such a event is just ridiculous so it's not a thought experiment at all , it's a thought muddle. The only thing indeterminate about it is the experimental protocol and the ever shifting meaning of personal pronouns. > > That's why in Helsinki, we got an indeterminacy. > Nothing as profound as that, all that happened is that in Helsinki somebody spouted some gibberish and stuck a question mark at the end of it. >> >> >> 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. > But before you said "he", The Helsinki guy , " i s both copies, as both remember having been in Helsinki . " . So the guy seeing Washington at 9:01 am Thursday morning remembers being the Helsinki guy at 8:59 am on Thursday morning, so the probability of that guy seeing Washington is 1 not 1/2 . But that guy is not alone, the guy seeing Moscow at 9:01am Thursday morning also remembers being the Helsinki guy at 8:59 am on Thursday morning, so the probability of that guy seeing Moscow is 1 not 1/2. Therefore the probability of the guy seeing Helsinki at 8:59 am on Thursday morning seeing BOTH Washington and Moscow at 9:01 Thursday morning is 100% not 50%. Even though Bruno conceded that "He" means " remember having been in Helsinki " John Clark is sure Bruno's response to this will be "not in the 1-p" forgetting that in a world that has 1-p duplicating machines there is no such thing as "THE 1-p". > >> >> >> "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 "he" just walked into a 1p view duplicating machine, therefore there is no such thing as "THE 1p view", therefore there is no contradiction. It's odd certainly, our technology isn't yet good enough to make 1p view duplicating machine so it seems very odd indeed, but there is no paradox, there is no logical contradiction. It's just odd nothing more. > > >>> >> >>> 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)" > Not if there are 2 I's, and there are because I just walked into a I duplicating machine. You told me to take the point of view of both so I will, I see Moscow AND I see Washington at the same time; the Washington Man doesn't and the Moscow Man doesn't but "I" does if "I" means what Bruno Marchal just said that personal pronoun should mean, but then Bruno changes the fundamental meanings of personal pronouns several times in each post so it's hard to keep up. >> >> >> There is no such thing as "THE 1p" in a world with 1p duplicating >> machines. > > > > > That is contradicted by what copies says. > If BOTH copies say "mine is THE 1p and there is no other" then THAT is a contradiction and both copies are Imbeciles. > > > you will not become a monster with two heads. > > You will become one of them, > And John Clark asks yet again, after "you" has been duplicated so that "you" is now TWO and the experiment is now over which ONE did "you" turn out to be? If "you" can't answer that question (and "you" can't) then it's not a experiment. > > The question is about the 1p seeing a city, > I know, it's about "THE 1p" and that is exactly why it's not a question, it's gibberish. > > > The question is on the 1p knowledge, not the 1p belief > There is no such thing as THE 1p knowledge or THE 1p belief because there is no such that as THE 1p, therefore there is no such think as "the question". 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.
