On 30 Jan 2017, at 17:44, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>> Where it says things like "in the people duplicating
experiment *YOU* can not predict what one and only one city *YOU*
will see after *YOU* after have been duplicated and thus there are
now 2 of *YOU* and *YOU* sees 2 cities". What one and only one
meaning does the word "YOU" have in the preceding sentence? Who is
the one and only one referent?
> So you dare to insist on this?
Yes I dares.
> In W, and in M, they both acknowledge that they can only
write W, or write M in the personal diary
And which one acknowledges that he and only he is H? W or M?
You do have agree that the three people are the same H person. But he
is duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the HM in M. The H in
Helsinki is no more there, so to confirm the prediction, we have to
ask both HW and HM, and both say that the prediction "W v M" was
correct, in both the 1p views, and that "W and M" is correct from the
3p views but incorrect from the 1p-views, which was the one asked to
predict in Helsinki.
> Both agree that they did survive in only one place
Yes, and both agree they are H.
Exactly.
So you tell me, what one and only one city did H end up seeing, W or
M?
W, and only W for the H guy finding himself in W.
M, and only M for the H guy finding himself in M.
Both agree that "W or M" was correct (and they are correct with the
assumption and this protocol).
None claims suddenly to have the first person experience of feeling
themselves being in two cities at once.
And yes both say they are in one place and one place only, but if
both also say they are H then which one should be believed, W or M
or both or neither?
Both.
And indeed, as I just show above, both confirm "W v M" (exclusive
"or"), and both refutes "W & M" (keeping in mind that W and M
represent the first person subjective experience of seeing something
after some door is open).
> The referent of "you" becomes unclear only because you decide
to abstract from the 1-3 distinction,
The referent is unclear to John Clark, Bruno Marchal claims the
referent is always clear to Bruno Marchal, if that were true Bruno
Marchal could have ended this debate long ago simply by always
using the referent in the thought experiment rather than the
personal pronoun, but Bruno Marchal has refused to do that
because then the flaws in the logic would be obvious. Those little
personal pronouns may be small but they can cover up a multitude of
sins, aka sloppy thinking.
I did it with and without pronouns, and that part of the argument is
understood by nine year old children. You are the only one having a
problem with this, and nobody understand your argument, as it consists
in systematically introducing a difficulty where precisely the
computationalist hypothesis makes everything utterly transparent.
Bruno
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
