> On 7 Sep 2020, at 16:33, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 9:29 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > >> In that thought experiment there is no objective probability because John > >> Clark is always in a prime numbered room or John Clark is not. So there is > >> only subjective probability. There is a 100% chance John Clark will walk > >> out, look at the number on the door and see a prime number, and a 100% > >> chance he will not see a prime number. > > > You make the same error than Bruce (curiously enough). Because all the > > alternative are realised, you take as 1 the probability that you feel them. > > And you make the exact same error over and over and over and over again! If > I made a mistake in the above it certainly wasn't that one because I said > absolutely nothing about what Mr.You would or would not do or say or think, > and could not even if I wanted to because due to the circumstances of the > thought experiment the personal pronoun "you" has no referent,
It has a perfectly clear referent, if you make precise if you talk about he first person “you” or about some third person view. You mock the 1p/3p distinction (the “peepee”), but the absence of reference comes from not taking that difference into account. It is an informal confusion similar to Penrose and Lucas, who confused the []p (3p), and the []p & p (1p). The confusion is natural as G* proves them equivalent, but the whole point comes from the fact hat the machine cannot prove that equivalence. The machine cannot even define “[]p & p”, which explains the difficulty here, but it is both resolved intuitively and formally with the mechanist assumption made precise, and the understanding of the 1p/3p difference (that you have, as you told us many times). Bruno > so any "question" using that word has no answer because it is not a question, > it's just some words and a question mark. > > >> However if you were to ask one of the individual John Clarks in one of > >> those rooms AFTER the duplication "What is the probability you will see a > >> prime number on the door when you walk out?" then that would be a > >> legitimate unambiguous question, and the answer would be 25% because there > >> are 25 prime numbers less than 100. > > > In this case, there were no explicit duplication, > > Exactly, and therefore the personal pronoun "you" would not be ambiguous.so a > question that started as "what would you" would not automatically be an > ambiguous question. > > > Let me ask you this: do you agree that if I can predict with certainty that > > I will be [...] > > I don't need to read another word. No I do not agree, and I don't disagree > either because gibberish is not the sort of thing one can agree or disagree > with, it's just 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2wc2BC%2BuSK14C%2BbFGOJqpSTobjmfwiLxEo%3D66vedJDSg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2wc2BC%2BuSK14C%2BbFGOJqpSTobjmfwiLxEo%3D66vedJDSg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2947A281-D089-466B-9693-E4E265382A43%40ulb.ac.be.
