Re: Movie Argument

On 24 May 2017, at 13:58, David Nyman wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> Date: 20 May 2017 at 10:29 Subject: Re: ​Movie argument To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> On 20 May 2017 02:36, "Bre

Re: ​Movie argument

On 24 May 2017, at 13:56, David Nyman wrote: Let me know if anything is still unclear. -- Forwarded message -- From: David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> Date: 20 May 2017 at 01:30 Subject: Re: ​Movie argument To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>

Re: ​Movie argument

Where do you get such nonsense...and why do you repeat it. U.S. schools are all different because they are run by local school boards. My mother taught in a two-room Texas county school where the students were told to leave their guns outside the door. Brent On 5/20/2017 10:14 PM,

Re: ​Movie argument

Subject: Re: ​Movie argument On Thu, May 18, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: ​> ​ So which is the Boss, John, Mathematics, somehow at the 'base; of the universe, or is physics the top dog from the 1st split second? ​ One of ​ ​ Ren

Re: ​Movie argument

On 21 May 2017 00:32, "John Clark" wrote: On Sat, May 20, 2017 David Nyman wrote: > ​> ​ > physics itself, whether considered in terms of its observable component or > the abstract theory invoked in explanation of those observables, need make > no

Re: ​Movie argument

On Sat, May 20, 2017 David Nyman wrote: > ​> ​ > physics itself, whether considered in terms of its observable component or > the abstract theory invoked in explanation of those observables, need make > no theoretical reference to truth. > In physics a theory is never

Re: ​Movie argument

On 5/20/2017 9:56 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:30 PM, David Nyman >wrote: ​> ​ 2+2=4 is a tautology of arithmetic; IOW it merely expresses something that is formally necessitated in the very definition of

Re: ​Movie argument

On 20 May 2017 5:56 p.m., "John Clark" wrote: On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:30 PM, David Nyman wrote: ​> ​ > 2+2=4 is a tautology of arithmetic; IOW it merely expresses something > that is formally necessitated in the very definition of the terms. What

Re: ​Movie argument

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:30 PM, David Nyman wrote: ​> ​ > 2+2=4 is a tautology of arithmetic; IOW it merely expresses something > that is formally necessitated in the very definition of the terms. What > does it then add to say that it is true that 2+2=4? Well, we test

Re: ​Movie argument

On 20 May 2017 02:36, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/19/2017 5:30 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 19 May 2017 at 21:00, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 5/19/2017 8:45 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List < >

Re: ​Movie argument

On 5/19/2017 5:30 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 19 May 2017 at 21:00, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 5/19/2017 8:45 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 18, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List

Re: ​Movie argument

On 19 May 2017 at 21:00, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 5/19/2017 8:45 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > ​> ​ >> So which is the Boss, John, Mathematics, somehow at the 'base; of the

Re: ​Movie argument

On 19 May 2017 9:00 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/19/2017 8:45 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 18, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: ​> ​ > So which is the Boss, John, Mathematics, somehow at the 'base; of the >

Re: ​Movie argument

On 5/19/2017 8:45 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 18, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List >wrote: ​> ​ So which is the Boss, John, Mathematics, somehow at the 'base; of the universe, or is physics the

Re: ​Movie argument

On Thu, May 18, 2017 spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: ​> ​ > So which is the Boss, John, Mathematics, somehow at the 'base; of the > universe, or is physics the top dog from the 1st split second? ​ One of ​ ​ René ​Magritte's​ most famous paintings is

Re: ​Movie argument

g-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thu, May 18, 2017 2:34 pm Subject: Re: ​Movie argument On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: ​ ​>>​ And John Clark could have told them both that long long ago except for the fact that before t

Re: ​Movie argument

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>>​ >> And John Clark could have told them both that long long ago except for >> the fact that before the duplication the W man and the M man did not exist. > > > ​> ​ > If this suppresses the first person

Re: ​Movie argument

On 17 May 2017, at 18:18, John Clark wrote: On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​​The information they "just got" is that the man who saw M became the M man and the many who saw W became the W man,​ ​and I could have correctly predicted that

Re: ​Movie argument

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​The information they "just got" is that the man who saw M became the M >> man and the many who saw W became the W man, >> ​ ​ >> and I could have correctly predicted that long long ago. > > > ​> ​ > Not at all. >

Re: ​Movie argument

On 16 May 2017, at 23:44, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​they could not, for purely logical reason, predict the bit of information they just got. ​The information they "just got" is that the man who saw M became the M

Re: ​Movie argument

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > they could not, for purely logical reason, predict the bit of information > they just got. > ​The information they "just got" is that the man who saw M became the M man and the many who saw W became the W man, and I

Re: ​Movie argument

On 10 May 2017, at 18:57, John Clark wrote: On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​I think the guy who remembers being the guy in Helsinki survives, but you think the guy in Helsinki survives, and that's a important distinction because after the

Re: ​Movie argument

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> I think the guy who remembers being the guy in Helsinki survives, but you >> think the guy in Helsinki survives, and that's a important distinction >> because after the duplication there is no guy in Helsinki.

Re: ​Movie argument

On 10 May 2017, at 03:58, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>> ​2) "you" mean here the guy in Helsinki, ​>> ​If that's what "you" means then "you" will see nothing but oblivion because after the duplication there will be NO GUY in

Re: ​Movie argument

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​>>> ​ >> 2) "you" mean here the guy in Helsinki, >> > > ​>> ​ > If that's what "you" means then "you" will see nothing but oblivion > because after the duplication there will be NO GUY in Helsinki; > > ​> ​ > False

Re: ​Movie argument

On 08 May 2017, at 19:24, John Clark wrote: On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​​If a proper noun is not the referent of the personal pronouns Bruno Marchal loves to through around with abandon then WHAT IS? When Bruno asks ​"what city will you

Re: ​Movie argument

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​If a proper noun is not the referent of the personal pronouns Bruno >> Marchal loves to through around with abandon then WHAT IS? When Bruno asks >> ​"what city will you see?" who exactly is Bruno asking the

Re: ​Movie argument

On 07 May 2017, at 23:38, John Clark wrote: On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​​John Clark agrees with Bruno Marchal that personal pronouns are ambiguous in a world that contains people duplicating machines because the referent will always be

Re: ​Movie argument

On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ >> ​John Clark agrees with Bruno Marchal that personal pronouns are >> ambiguous in a world that contains people duplicating machines because the >> referent will always be unclear, but for years John Clark has proposed

Re: ​Movie argument

On 07 May 2017, at 02:16, John Clark wrote: On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​You are the one using pronouns in the ambiguous way.​ ​Do you mean that "you" will see two cities ​John Clark agrees with Bruno Marchal that personal pronouns are

Re: ​Movie argument

On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > You are the one using pronouns in the ambiguous way. > ​ ​ > Do you mean that "you" will see two cities > ​John Clark agrees with Bruno Marchal that personal pronouns are ambiguous in a world that contains people

Re: ​Movie argument

On 05 May 2017, at 22:25, John Clark wrote: On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​Is the "you" after the button was pressed the same person as​ ​the "I" before the button was pushed, ​> ​Yes. We have agreed on this since the beginning. ​>> ​or

Re: ​Movie argument

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Is the "you" after the button was pressed the same person as >> ​ ​ >> the "I" before the button was pushed, > > > ​> ​ > Yes. We have agreed on this since the beginning. > > ​>> ​ >> or is that other person

Re: ​Movie argument

On 04 May 2017, at 21:23, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​Doesn't the fact that even AFTER "I"​​ ​push the button "I" STILL don't know what ONE city "I" ended up in make you suspect that maybe just maybe the way personal

Re: ​Movie argument

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Doesn't the fact that even *AFTER* "I"​ >> ​ ​ >> push the button "I" *STILL* don't know what *ONE* city "I" ended up in >> make you suspect that maybe just maybe the way personal pronouns are used >> needs to

Re: ​Movie argument

On 04 May 2017, at 01:17, John Clark wrote: On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​You just evade the question. I said, in Helsinki, I know (assuming mechanism of course) ​What does mechanism have to do with it?​ Without assuming mechanism, we

Re: ​Movie argument

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > You just evade the question. I said, in Helsinki, I know (assuming > mechanism of course) > ​What does mechanism have to do with it?​ > ​> ​ > I will push on a button, and find myself alive in ONE city, living an

Re: ​Movie argument

On 02 May 2017, at 23:17, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​We know (modulo Mechanism) that the experience will feel to be unique and asymmetrical when we are still in Helsinki. ​Modulo my ass, when I am in Helsinki I know I

Re: ​Movie argument ​

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > comp implies all other form of computationalism. If you know a version of > comp which has no first person indeterminacy, then give it to us. > ​I know that Computationalism means cognition is a type of computation,

Re: ​Movie argument

On 2 May 2017 10:17 p.m., "John Clark" wrote: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > We know (modulo Mechanism) that the experience will feel to be unique and > asymmetrical when we are still in Helsinki. > ​Modulo my ass, when

Re: ​Movie argument

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > We know (modulo Mechanism) that the experience will feel to be unique and > asymmetrical when we are still in Helsinki. > ​Modulo my ass, when I am in Helsinki I know I am in Helsinki and nowhere else and I don't

Re: ​Movie argument ​

On 02 May 2017, at 03:07, John Clark wrote: On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​You said you could never experience 2 things at the same​ time, I gave a example of a way that you could. ​> ​Yes, by giving the 3-1 view, ​I don't know what that

Re: ​Movie argument

On 02 May 2017, at 00:48, John Clark wrote: On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​what is that one and only one answer? Is it Moscow or Washington?​ ​And if there is only one then​ ​why do you call it " the future 1p views ", why is it plural?

Re: ​Movie argument ​

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> You said you could never experience 2 things at the same >> ​ >> time, I gave a example of a way that you could. > > > ​> ​ > Yes, by giving the 3-1 view, > ​I don't know what that means. I do know that I give a

​Movie argument

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> ​>> ​ >> what is that one and only one answer? Is it Moscow or Washington? >> ​ ​ >> And if there is only one then >> ​ ​ >> why do you call it " the future 1p views ", why is it plural? > > > ​> ​ > Because we are in a

Re: ​Movie argument ​

On 01 May 2017, at 01:41, John Clark wrote: ​Bruno wrote:​ >​ It is not a time asymmetry,​ it is first person asymmetry. You said you could never experience 2 things at the same​ time, I gave a example of a way that you could. Yes, by giving the 3-1 view, but that was not what was asked.

Re: Movie Argument ​

On 01 May 2017, at 01:30, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​OK b​ut ​tell me Bruno, how many correct answers to the question "which city will BM feel​ ​feel to be personally​​ i​n after the duplication?​" Do you think

​Movie argument ​

​Bruno wrote:​ > > > ​ > It is not a time asymmetry, > ​ > it is first person asymmetry. You said you could never experience 2 things at the same ​ time, I gave a example of a way that you could. If my ​ example is wrong and there is a asymmetry then either ​ the Washington man or the Moscow

Re: Movie Argument ​

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> OK b >> ​ut ​ >> tell me Bruno, how many correct answers to the question "which city will >> BM feel >> ​ ​ >> feel to be >> personally​ >> ​ i​ >> n after the duplication?​" Do you think there is only one

Re: Movie Argument ​

On 28 Apr 2017, at 20:55, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​> ​OK that is the answer, but what is the question? ​Who is it we're talking about, who will or will not see Moscow and/or Washington?​ ​> ​Why do you ask? That was

Re: Movie Argument ​

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​> ​ >> OK that is the answer, but what is the question? ​Who is it we're >> talking about, who will or will not see Moscow and/or Washington?​ > > > ​> ​ > Why do you ask? That was in the previous post. > ​No it was

Re: Movie Argument ​

On 27 Apr 2017, at 21:02, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​The correct answer, the best prediction is "Moscow or Washington". ​OK that is the answer, but what is the question? ​ ​Who is it we're talking about, who will or

Re: Movie Argument ​

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > The correct answer, the best prediction is "Moscow or Washington". > ​OK that is the answer, but what is the question? ​ ​Who is it we're talking about, who will or will not see Moscow and/or Washington?​ > ​> ​

Re: Movie Argument ​

On 26 Apr 2017, at 23:57, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Bruno Marchal (BM) decided to take some Holiday in Helsinki, where BM was proposed a Washington-Moscow duplication experience.​ ​Someone asked in Helsinki to BM to

Re: Movie Argument ​

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > Bruno Marchal (BM) decided to take some Holiday in Helsinki, where BM was > proposed a Washington-Moscow duplication experience. > ​ ​ > Someone asked in Helsinki to BM to make a prediction about where BM would >

Re: Movie Argument ​

On 25 Apr 2017, at 19:21, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​I use "I" because there is no ambiguity, ​Then prove it, replace "I" with "Bruno Marchal" and see how far "you" get in a world that contains "I" duplicating machines.

Re: Movie Argument ​

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > I use "I" because there is no ambiguity, > ​Then prove it, replace "I" with "Bruno Marchal" and see how far "you" get in a world that contains "I" duplicating machines. > ​> ​ > given the definition given, and it

Re: Movie Argument ​

On 24 Apr 2017, at 02:13, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​John Clark understands the setup but not the question because a very odd word was used in it, "I". Not that predictions, correct ones or incorrect ones, have

Re: Movie Argument ​

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> John Clark understands the setup but not the question because a very odd >> word was used in it, "I". >> Not that predictions, correct ones or incorrect ones, have anything to do >> with a sense of personal

Re: Movie Argument ​

On 21 Apr 2017, at 21:40, John Clark wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Do you understand this: you are duplicated 24 times per second during 1h30 into as many copies can be sent in front of one of the 2^(16180 * 1) possible images on a screen with 16180 * 1 pixels,

Movie Argument ​

Bruno Marchal > wrote: > ​> ​ > Do you understand this: > you are duplicated 24 times per second during 1h30 into as many copies can > be sent in front of one of the 2^(16180 * 1) > possible images on a screen with 16180 * 1 pixels, which can be black