Re: Step 4? (Re: QUESTION 2 (Re: Holiday Exercise

On 09 Aug 2016, at 19:32, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​a nine years old child get the point ​And I might get your point if I had the mentality of a nine year old child, or of something similar like an ancient Greek.

Re: Step 4? (Re: QUESTION 2 (Re: Holiday Exercise

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > a nine years old child get the point ​And I might get your point if I had the mentality of a nine year old child, or of something similar like an ancient Greek. John K Clark​ -- You received this message

Re: Step 4? (Re: QUESTION 2 (Re: Holiday Exercise

On 06 Aug 2016, at 20:35, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​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

Re: Step 4? (Re: QUESTION 2 (Re: Holiday Exercise

On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > 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

Re: Step 4? (Re: QUESTION 2 (Re: Holiday Exercise

On 06 Aug 2016, at 03:43, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal 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

Re: Step 4? (Re: QUESTION 2 (Re: Holiday Exercise

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal 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

Re: Step 4? (Re: QUESTION 2 (Re: Holiday Exercise

On 04 Aug 2016, at 19:53, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Marchal wrote: ​> ​The question is not about duplication. ​OK.​ ​And that part is still OK. Assigning probabilities about what "YOU" will see next is not ambiguous as long as "YOU"

Re: Step 4? (Re: QUESTION 2 (Re: Holiday Exercise

On 04 Aug 2016, at 19:53, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Marchal wrote: ​> ​The question is not about duplication. ​OK.​ ​And that part is still OK. Assigning probabilities about what "YOU" will see next is not ambiguous as long as "YOU"

Re: Step 4? (Re: QUESTION 2 (Re: Holiday Exercise

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Marchal wrote: > > ​> ​ >> The question is not about duplication. > > > ​OK.​ > > > ​And that part is still OK. Assigning probabilities about what "YOU" will see next is not ambiguous as long as "YOU" duplicating machine are not around. ​> ​ >

Step 4? (Re: QUESTION 2 (Re: Holiday Exercise

On 03 Aug 2016, at 19:20, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​The question is not about duplication. ​OK.​ ​> ​Do you agree that if today, someone is "sure" that tomorrow (or any precise time later) he will be uncertain of an

Re: QUESTION 2 (Re: Holiday Exercise

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > The question is not about duplication. ​OK.​ ​> ​ > Do you agree that if today, someone is "sure" that tomorrow (or any > precise time later) he will be uncertain of an outcome of a certain > experience, then he

QUESTION 2 (Re: Holiday Exercise

On 02 Aug 2016, at 20:03, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​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