On 02 Mar 2014, at 10:49, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2014 21:33, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because "1+1=2" is elementary math, learned in high school.
" "1+1=2" is a fact " is a non trivial philosophical statement,
which involved a non trivial notion like "fact". I have seen people
discussing ad n
On 2 March 2014 21:33, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Because "1+1=2" is elementary math, learned in high school.
>
" "1+1=2" is a fact " is a non trivial philosophical statement, which
> involved a non trivial notion like "fact". I have seen people discussing ad
> nauseam on what is a fact, and some p
On 01 Mar 2014, at 10:15, LizR wrote:
On 1 March 2014 21:03, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:06, LizR wrote:
On 1 March 2014 03:22, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote:
Indeed. I have mentioned at times that if you accept "Yes Doctor"
the rest of comp follo
On 1 March 2014 21:03, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:06, LizR wrote:
>
> On 1 March 2014 03:22, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote:
>>
>> Indeed. I have mentioned at times that if you accept "Yes Doctor" the
>>> rest of comp follows. Which I realise isn
On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:06, LizR wrote:
On 1 March 2014 03:22, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote:
Indeed. I have mentioned at times that if you accept "Yes Doctor"
the rest of comp follows. Which I realise isn't quite true,
? You might elaborate on this. What is the "re
On 28 Feb 2014, at 19:14, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>>Sorry, I was guessing something along the lines of FPI = first
person interpretation.
> ???
!!!
> You are the one describing the FPI as a crazy discovery.
No, I'm the one who keeps say
On 1 March 2014 03:22, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote:
>
> Indeed. I have mentioned at times that if you accept "Yes Doctor" the rest
>> of comp follows. Which I realise isn't quite true,
>>
> ? You might elaborate on this. What is the "rest", and why do you think it
On 28 Feb 2014, at 15:28, David Nyman wrote:
On 26 February 2014 17:04, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi David,
On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:32, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck
wrote
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>Sorry, I was guessing something along the lines of FPI = first person
> interpretation.
>
> > ???
>
!!!
> You are the one describing the FPI as a crazy discovery.
>
No, I'm the one who keeps saying that first person indeterminacy (I d
On 26 Feb 2014, at 19:37, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>>> provide the algorithm of prediction.
>> Why? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? FPI is
about the feeling of self and prediction has nothing to do with it.
> FPI = first
On 26 February 2014 17:04, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi David,
>
> On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:32, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
>>
>> On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck wrote:
>>
>> *>>This is the same as say
On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote:
On 26 February 2014 15:16, chris peck
wrote:
Hi Liz
>> In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition
of "you" has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split.
Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is
ta
and the non communicable qualia. I think. With their rich mathematics.
Bruno
All the best
Chris
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:33:21 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-26 7:31 GMT+01
partial solutions, testable, and up to now tested (thanks
to both Gödel and QM).
Bruno
All the best
Chris.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:26:02 +0100
On 25 Feb 2014, at 07
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> provide the algorithm of prediction.
>>>
>>
>> >> Why? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? FPI is about
>> the feeling of self and prediction has nothing to do with it.
>>
>
> > FPI = first person indeterminacy
>
Sorry, I wa
Hi David,
On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:32, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck
wrote:
>>This is the same as saying that I will experience all possible
futures in the MWI - but
On 26 February 2014 19:31, chris peck wrote:
> Hi Liz
>
> *>> I meant changed from our everyday definition, in which we normally
> assume there is only one you, which is (or is at least associated with)
> your physical structure. Which we generally assume exists in one universe.*
>
> We lose that
if MWI must be in accordance with QM.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#PRPO
All the best
Chris.
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:28:53 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-26 7:2
ttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#PRPO
>
> All the best
>
> Chris.
>
> ----------
> From: allco...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:28:53 +0100
>
> Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
&
s in
which 'we' appear.
All the best
Chris.
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:28:53 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-26 7:21 GMT+01:00 chris peck :
Hi Bruno
>> Yes, it is t
y are wrong, but only the interpretation
> of what is probability change in MWI (and duplication settings)... not the
> prediction... if you say it is totally useless, then you're ready to make a
> bet with me (as everything for your has equal probability of happening...)
>
> Qu
useless, then you're ready to make a
bet with me (as everything for your has equal probability of happening...)
Quentin
>
> All the best
>
> Chris.
>
> ----------
> From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
> Su
utcome without being committed to the view that either future self sees both.
All that 1p,3p,3-1p,1-3p stuff is a rubbishy smoke screen to divert attention
from the simple error you make here, isn't it?
All the best
Chris.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject:
On 25 Feb 2014, at 07:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Greaves rejects subjective uncertainty. With respect to spin up and
spin down pay special attention to the point in section 4.1 where,
in discussion of a thought experiment formally identical to Bruno's
step 3, he argues:
"What ... should
ris.
> From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:21:00 +0100
>
>
> On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > provide
On 26 February 2014 15:53, chris peck wrote:
> Hi Liz
>
> *>>Assuming comp it appears to be the state(s) that could follow on from
> your current brain state via whatever transitions rules are allowed by - I
> assume - logical necessity. Perhaps Bruno can explain.*
>
> let me ask a more round abo
me 'if the definition of "you" has been
changed to accommodate the fact that you've split'
Changed from which definition?
All the best
Chris.
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:31:01 +1300
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
From: lizj..
On 26 February 2014 15:16, chris peck wrote:
> Hi Liz
>
> *>> In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of
> "you" has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split. *
>
> Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is your
> criterion for identity ove
.@ulb.ac.be
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:21:00 +0100
>
>
> On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > provide the algorithm of predic
On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:35, John Clark wrote:
> provide the algorithm of prediction.
Why? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? FPI is about
the feeling of self and prediction has nothing to do with it.
FPI = first person indeterminacy of result of experience having two
outco
On 25 Feb 2014, at 10:43, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> David Deutsch does not reject probability...
Sure he does, he swaps out the Born rule for rational decision
theory (+ amendments to make it compatible with MWI). There isn't
probability, but we should act 'as if' there was. Its what he's
On 25 Feb 2014, at 01:05, chris peck wrote:
The point is that how probability fits into MWI's determinist
framework, or any TofE really, is still an open question.
Of course, and my point is that comp aggravates that problem, as only
extends the indterminacy from a wave to arithmetic.
But
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes.
>>>
>>> >>> In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view.
>>>
>>
>>
> >> In who's "1-1 view"? You'll probably say in "The Helsinki Man's"
>>
>
> > No. The W-man and the M-m
>
But that
tstochastic processes occur. For instance if asked whether they occur he
> will certainly reply ‘no’, because the non-probabilistic axioms of quantum
> theory require the stateto evolve in a continuous and deterministic way.)"*
>
> Now if you want to make the case that Deutsch '
7;no
probabilistic axiom is required in quantum theory' be my guest. Im always up
for a laugh.
All the best
Chris.
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:43:33 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02
r measure
will follow the predicted distribution... so what's your point ?
> if you disagree you need display the same generosity and explain to me
> what you think they are arguing and how that is different.
>
See upper
Quentin
> Waving your hands in the air demanding more and mo
moniously and uncritically ditch is no-ones idea of fun.
All the best
Chris.
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:26:52 +1300
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the de
In the MWI you *do* see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of "you"
has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split. Or to put it
another way, you (now) will become you (who sees spin up) and you (who sees
spin down), which by then will be two different people.
--
You received t
ility to measure spin up was one.*
>
> See above.
>
Well what I see does not seem to make sense.
Regards,
Quentin
>
> All the best
>
> Chris.
>
> --
> From: da...@davidnyman.com
> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:32:01 +
>
> Subject: Re: 3-
On 25 February 2014 16:54, chris peck wrote:
> Hi Liz
>
> *>> I can't see why the MWI's existing explanation of probability needs to
> have anything added.*
>
> I can't see that MWI has an explanation of probability.
>
>
>
>
> *>>Probability in the MWI is deduced from the results of measurements
assign a probability to seeing either result I
assign 1 to both.
Theirs is a method of calculating frequencies of me seeing ups and downs but
not probabilities of seeing up or down.
All the best
Chris.
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:30:48 +1300
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chines
On 25 February 2014 13:05, chris peck wrote:
> Since Everett there have been numerous attempts to smuggle an account of
> probability back into the theory, and more recent attempts: Deutsch,
> Wallace, Greaves etc., do that by abandoning the concept of subjective
> uncertainty altogether and repl
a...@davidnyman.com
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:32:01 +0000
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck
On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck wrote:
>
> *>>This is the same as saying that I will experience all possible futures
>> in the MWI - but by the time I experience them, of course, the versio
On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck
wrote:
>>This is the same as saying that I will experience all possible
futures in the MWI - but by the time I experience them, of course,
the version of me in each branch will be different, and it always
1.
from the stand point of the person duplicated. Certainly for me he
doesn't manage that.
What is wrong with above?
Bruno
All the best
Chris.
> From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
>
in good company.
>
> See here:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136
>
> All the best
>
> Chris.
>
> --
> From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than th
On 24 February 2014 14:04, chris peck wrote:
> Hi Liz
>
> *>> Let's also suppose you don't know which solar system you will be sent
> to, and that in fact the matter transmitter is supposed to send you to A or
> B with equal probability based on some "quantum coin flip". But by accident
> it dup
On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck wrote:
*>>This is the same as saying that I will experience all possible futures
> in the MWI - but by the time I experience them, of course, the version of
> me in each branch will be different, and it always seems to me,
> retrospectively, as though I only
ust recognition that
each duplicate sees one outcome, I think that he actually wants to show that 3p
and 1p probability assignments would be asymmetric from the stand point of the
person duplicated. Certainly for me he doesn't manage that.
All the best
Chris.
> From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
to show that 3p
and 1p probability assignments would be asymmetric from the stand point of the
person duplicated. Certainly for me he doesn't manage that.
All the best
Chris.
> From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Bette
On 22 Feb 2014, at 21:09, LizR wrote to Clark (with the "above pap" =
the FPI of step 3):
The "above pap" is only a small step in an argument (and it only
reproduces a result obtained in the MWI, anyway).
OK, but the MWI is a "big" thing, relying on another big thing: QM.
The FPI assume
On 22 Feb 2014, at 19:45, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes.
> In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view.
In who's "1-1 view"? You'll probably say in "The Helsinki Man's",
No. The W-man and the M
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes.
>>>
>>
>> > In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view.
>>
>
> In who's "1-1 view"? You'll probably say in "The Helsinki Man's", but
The "above pap" is only a small step in an argument (and it only reproduces
a result obtained in the MWI, anyway).
--
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
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes.
>>
>
> > In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view.
>
In who's "1-1 view"? You'll probably say in "The Helsinki Man's", but his
view is just of Helsinki. Perhaps you mean the future "1 view"
On 21 Feb 2014, at 19:07, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> if it is about a prediction on 1p events, the specificity is
simple: we have to interview all the copies.
Then don't just talk to the Moscow Man and say that is enough to
disprove the prediction th
On 21 February 2014 14:48, chris peck wrote:
> Hi Liz
>
>
>>>Suppose for the sake of argument that the matter transmitter sends you to
>>> another solar system where you will live out the reminder of your life.
>>> Maybe you committed some crime and this is the consequence, to be
>>> "transported"
2014-02-21 19:07 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > if it is about a prediction on 1p events, the specificity is simple: we
>> have to interview all the copies.
>>
>
> Then don't just talk to the Moscow Man and say that is enough to disprove
> the predictio
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> if it is about a prediction on 1p events, the specificity is simple: we
> have to interview all the copies.
>
Then don't just talk to the Moscow Man and say that is enough to disprove
the prediction that the Helsinki Man will see Moscow AND Washingto
On 21 February 2014 16:48, chris peck wrote:
> Hi Liz
>
>
>
> *>>Suppose for the sake of argument that the matter transmitter sends you
> to another solar system where you will live out the reminder of your life.
> Maybe you committed some crime and this is the consequence, to be
> "transported"
t probabilities, however small, get rounded up
> to 1 in MWI scenarios.
>
> All the best
>
> Chris.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
> Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Tha
All the best
Chris.
From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 03:48:43 +
Hi Liz
>>Suppose for the sake of argument that the matter transmitter sends
you to another solar syste
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:19:47 +1100
> From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 03:48:43AM +, chris peck wrote:
> >
> > My probabilities get
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 03:48:43AM +, chris peck wrote:
>
> My probabilities get assigned in the same way. ie: chance of seeing solar
> system A is 1. I can't assign a probability of seeing Solar System B if I
> don't know about the possibility of accidents. But,
> If I know that there is a
will in fact
only experience one or the other, I will demand my money back or at least half
of it.
All the best
Chris.
From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 03:48:43 +00
I'm sure its an unpopular
view but as I see it probabilities, however small, get rounded up to 1 in MWI
scenarios.
All the best
Chris.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20
On 20 Feb 2014, at 16:59, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> I can say today that I am the guy having answered your post of
last week.
But if duplicating chambers exist then there are lots of people who
could say exactly the same thing, so more
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I can say today that I am the guy having answered your post of last week.
>
But if duplicating chambers exist then there are lots of people who could
say exactly the same thing, so more specificity is needed.
> >> and neither is experien
an inability to conduct simple
probability sums to convince you that individuals only have a single
pov?
I do the contrary. By definition of the 1p, it is just obvious that
individuals only have a single pov, and this is used to lead to the
probabilities.
But I don't think that is al
On 19 Feb 2014, at 20:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-19 19:36 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux
wrote:
> Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding
the argument that you can't meet your doppelganger,
So you want me to
On 19 Feb 2014, at 19:36, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux
wrote:
> Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding
the argument that you can't meet your doppelganger,
So you want me to defend my case but specifically ask me not to us
7;you' and 'you' must stand, which brings us to another point: as Clark
> points out, preservation of identity is central to this thought experiment.
>
> The other point that Clark often makes is that step 3 is worthless, and if
> the intention of step 3 is to hammer home
n zero from the sum, this identity relation between '*you*',
> 'you' and 'you' must stand, which brings us to another point: as Clark
> points out, preservation of identity is central to this thought experiment.
>
> The other point that Clark often makes is that step
You are looking at a geiger counter pointing at a radioactive source. On
average, it clicks about once every other second. Do you expect to hear it
click in the next second?
What is wrong with the above question? It seems to me exactly equivalent in
probability terms to "do you expect to see Washi
27; must stand, which
brings us to another point: as Clark points out, preservation of identity is
central to this thought experiment.
The other point that Clark often makes is that step 3 is worthless, and if the
intention of step 3 is to hammer home that duplicated people would only ever
h
2014-02-19 19:36 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> > Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding the
>> argument that you can't meet your doppelganger,
>>
>
> So you want me to defend my case but specifically ask me not to u
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding the
> argument that you can't meet your doppelganger,
>
So you want me to defend my case but specifically ask me not to use logic
in doing so. No can do.
> or you have to
On 18 Feb 2014, at 19:52, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> if Mr. he is the fellow who is experiencing Helsinki right now
then the correct prediction would be Mr. he will see neither
Washington NOR Moscow.
> Simple calculus show that this pr
Yes this appears to be an argument against the MWI. If there is a
problem with people being duplicated (I can't see what it is myself)
then obviously it applies to the MWI.
On 19/02/2014, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 2014-02-18 19:52 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Bru
2014-02-18 19:52 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> if Mr. he is the fellow who is experiencing Helsinki right now then the
>>> correct prediction would be Mr. he will see neither Washington NOR Moscow.
>>>
>>
>> > Simple calculus show that thi
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> if Mr. he is the fellow who is experiencing Helsinki right now then the
>> correct prediction would be Mr. he will see neither Washington NOR Moscow.
>>
>
> > Simple calculus show that this prediction will be refuted by both
> copies.
>
Bu
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 17 Feb 2014, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> > what exactly is the question? Be specific and DON'T HIDE BEHIND
>>> PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT.
>>>
>>
>> >The question
On 17 Feb 2014, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> what exactly is the question? Be specific and DON'T HIDE BEHIND
PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT.
>The question is what do you [blah blah]
DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFER
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > what exactly is the question? Be specific and DON'T HIDE BEHIND
>> PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT.
>>
>
> >The question is what do you [blah blah]
>
DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT.
> You = the unique 1p owner of y
On 16 Feb 2014, at 17:46, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 , Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> A typical observation will be "the diary of the guy in W assess
that he is in W, and (perhaps) that he could not have predicted that,
>> That is incorrect, the Helsinki Man could have successfully
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 , Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> A typical observation will be "the diary of the guy in W assess that
>>> he is in W, and (perhaps) that he could not have predicted that,
>>
>>
>>
> >> That is incorrect, the Helsinki Man could have successfully predicted
>> that the Washington di
On 15 Feb 2014, at 19:30, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> The 3-1 view is the 3p view on the 1p views, note the plural,
after the duplication.
That is far more convoluted than it need to be, it's really not all
that complicated. After the dup
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > The 3-1 view is the 3p view on the 1p views, note the plural, after the
> duplication.
>
That is far more convoluted than it need to be, it's really not all that
complicated. After the duplication both the Washington Man and the Moscow
John, I add a comment to my preview post.
On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:
Then "the 1p" is of no use to anyone and neither is "the 3-1 view"
whatever the hell that is supposed to be.
It is a bit unfair, as I introduced that "3-1" notation exactly to
reply to your first attempt
90 matches
Mail list logo
