On 06 Aug 2016, at 03:43, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>>>>Assigning probabilities about what "YOU" will see next
is not ambiguous as long as "YOU" duplicating machine are not around.
>>> So, you are OK that the guy in Helsinki write
P("drinking coffee") = 1.
>> The guy in Helsinki? NO!!! Bruno Marchal said
"The question is not about duplication"
> The question 2 was not about duplication,
If duplication was not involved then why on god's green earth
were you talking about the goddamn HELSINKI MAN?!
Do you read the posts?
Question 1: in the duplication protocol, if event X is presented to
both copies (like getting coffee), P(X) = 1. You have agreed on this
last week. I quote your post (of 02 augustus):
<<
> both copies will have a cup of coffee after the
reconstitution. Are you OK that P("experience of drinking coffee") =
1?
Yes, and in this case it doesn't matter if Bruno Marchal says P is
the probability John Clark will drink the coffee or says P is the
probability "you" will drink the coffee, there is no ambiguity
either way. However if the Moscow man got the coffee but the
Washington man did not then there would be a 100% probability that
John Clark will get the coffee and also a 100% probability that John
Clark will not get the coffee, just as I would assign a 100%
probability that tomorrow tomatoes will be red and I would also
assign a 100% probability that tomorrow tomatoes will be green.
>>
It was the question 2 which does not involve duplication.
Question 2: if I am sure at time t that at time q, q > t, I will be
uncertain of the outcome of some experience x, then I am uncertain
about the outcome of that experience at time t.
You have answered both questions positively in your posts of the 02
August and 03 August respectively.
Then I have shown that the step 3 FPI is a direct consequence of
answering "yes" to the questions 1 and 2.
But your reply to that was not referring to the question correctly.
So, do you still agree with yourself on those two questions, and if
yes, do you see why it entails the FPI?
Bruno
> but the question 1 was, and you said that P("drinking
coffee") was equal to one.
P can always be equal to 1, it depends on what P means, and if P
has no meaning, if for example too many unspecified personal
pronouns are used, then P has no value at all, not even zero. In the
first case BOTH the Moscow man and the Washington man got the coffee
so the identity of the mysterious Mr. You does not need to be
specified and so P had both a meaning and a value.
If one gets the coffee and one does not what is the probability
(P) that "YOU" will get the coffee? Is it 1? No. Is it 1/2? No. Is
it 0? No, P has no value at all because P is 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.
