No, I did mean Sean Carroll and it was he who argues against (2017) that a clone, even a perfect one, is never you, because of no physical continuity. My mantra that you have identified correctly as utilitarian is fine with me, but you are really asking if a clone is an absolutely perfect copy-memory stream, and all fun stuff? On Orange Man, he his the best we can do because his opposition takes direct and indirect payments from Chairman Xi (I could list the politician$!), and his haters (over in the US) are quite chummy with global jihadists. He was also rather excellent domestically on unemployment, which the last guy never cared about. Neither did his voters. However, yes, he often has the 'presence,' of a carnival barker, a used car salesman, the bad kind, a New Yorker-which he most definitely is. Obnoxious but tough, in a world where the middle class is under constant pressure from Globalist oligarch$ who would rather do without the middle classes. (Sorry JC! I just needed to respond to Bruno).
-----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2020 6:14 am Subject: Re: Probability in Everettian QM On 10 Sep 2020, at 03:58, spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: Apply this to your own very active philosophy. Let us say that "you" are resurrected from the cold in the late 22nd century? The technicians of this later age, state upon your awakening: "Mr. Clark, the way science advanced over the years since your demise, demonstrated that to get you back to life, the easiest track to achieve was to scan the cold preserved brain of one, John Clark, and though the entire cortical data map of his life was available, the way we do things, the only way currently, is to build him a separate body, based on a very young clone of him, and transferred all data, memories, etc. Now, JC, is that clone, you??!! For me, it seems like it's Robert Nozick's, Closest Continuer. But what if the clone is duplicated? Physicist Sean Carroll would say that person wasn't you. I guess you mean David Albert. Sean Carroll defends Everett, which use implicitly the first person mechanist indeterminacy. This is how he explains the appearance of the collapse, without collapse. (Then Everett still use physicalism, but that cannot work with mechanism where the wave itself must be recovered from the statistic on all computations, not just the quantum one). My own feeling is like Nozick's, which is best expressed by the old American statement: "Close enough for government work.” OK. But that is utilitarianism. You cannot be serious on this, or you are mixing religion/moral/ethics with politics and the state, which should not be done (in a democracy). Justice needs truth (or the honest research of the truth), but truth cannot be declared to be juste at will, that would be wishful thinking. Now I simply must add this part in. "Mister Clark, we know that you have ever been a loyal liberal, and pursuant to this knowledge, we must warn you that the Earth is now the polity of Donald the Golden, recently, resurrected from the infrared of the past light cone about earth's orbit. We have provided a very nice residence on Mars Terrarium, Magnus Tharsis, where you will be welcomed. Unless, of course you choose to remain here, where you will have the opportunity to kiss The Donald's ring!.. Armipotens dudum celebrari praeter in Socialās ex timore! :-D That is the main problem with Trump. His disdain for facts and for the search of truth. We can suppose he has some good reason to behave like this, and I guess they are not very pretty. Bruno -----Original Message----- From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2020 7:01 am Subject: Re: Probability in Everettian QM On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:40 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > It has a perfectly clear referent, If it were perfectly clear then why doesn't Bruno Marchal use the referent in Bruno Marchal's thought experiments rather than a personal pronoun? John Clark has been asking Bruno Marchal to do that for years but Bruno Marchal absolutely refuses. > if you make precise if you talk about he first person “you” or about some > third person view. And as John Clark has been saying for years, if "you" is duplicated then there is no longer such a thing as "THE first person" there is only "A first person". 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0edq8JtmZZ0UDfdG0wDVknTWrF6U3vL0Y1Y2Zfj%3DgCaw%40mail.gmail.com. -- 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/1522412596.2342182.1599703134524%40mail.yahoo.com. -- 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/A14662D5-598B-4A1D-BBC8-8F7D82BACFA7%40ulb.ac.be. -- 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/162863221.2659555.1599764361414%40mail.yahoo.com.
