On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> >> I am right here in Helsinki right now, > > > > > OK. > >> > >> >> in the future what one and only one city will I see after the experiment >> is over? > > > > > That is the question. OK. > Yes > > > Notice that "I" refers to the 1p-experience. > That "I" refers to the 1p-experience of the person in Helsinki RIGHT NOW, and there is only one person who fits that description RIGHT NOW. In our world that "I" will have a unique successor tomorrow, but our world doesn't have matter duplicating machines. At least not yet. >> >> In the real world, and in any world that doesn't have people duplicating >> machines, that question makes perfect sense and the personal pronouns in it >> cause no problems. And you're right, a ten year old can understand the >> question, even a five year old could. That's because the person who wrote >> "I am right here in Helsinki right now" has one and only one successor in >> the future and thus there is a unique answer to the question. However if >> people duplicating machines are introduced, as is done in the thought >> experiment, then the person who wrote "I am right here in Helsinki right >> now" does *NOT* have a unique successor, > > > > Indeed. But the person "in Helsinki right now" believes or assumes digital > mechanism (computationalism). So he can do some reasoning. > > If he can reason then he knows that the assumption that has served him well for every day of his life, the assumption that he will have only one successor tomorrow, fails him now because for the first time in his life right here in Helsinki right now "he" will encounter a people duplicating machine. At that point "he" needs to make 2 changes to make sense of the strange new situation: 1) Abandon the assumption that "he" will have a unique successor because it's just not true anymore. 2) Stop using personal pronouns, all of them, because they only create ambiguity and confusion. English and all languages will need major revisions after such machines are invented, particularly in regard to personal pronouns. >> >> and so the question does *NOT* have a unique answer, > > > > > That is weird. > Yes, in a world with people duplicating machines things would be very weird indeed! But they wouldn't be illogical or self contradictory, they'd just be weird; and anybody who has studied modern physics, or even modern mathematics, knows that there is no law that says things can't be weird. > > So the guy right now in Helsinki can predict with certainty that he > will [...] > That is exactly the problem, who is this "the guy that will" fellow? I don't know but he's certainly not t he guy right now in Helsinki > > > (whoever he can become in that experience) will see only one city. > "He" has a name, USE IT. > > What he cannot be sure is if it will be Moscow, or Washington, due to the > 3p duplication. > No NO *NO*! It's NOT 3p duplication, it's a 1p duplication; you don't understand that and that's why you're so Confused. Computationalism says that matter can duplicate EVERYTHING if it is organized in the correct way, and that includes 1p. If you assume right at the start that a matter duplicating machine can't do that then you're assuming that Computationalism is untrue. And you can't assume the very thing you're trying to prove. > > > There is absolutely no problem at all that I can see. All questions are > precise, and have precise answers. > If the precise answer to the question "who exactly is the referent to that person pronoun?" was always clear then Bruno Marchal would have simply stopped using personal pronouns in Bruno Marchal 's thought experiments and this controversy would have ended back when George W Bush was still president. But that's not what happened. > The mechanist duplication makes impossible to reduce the ignorance in > Helsinki, > Other than the referent of personal pronouns in questions about the future in a world with matter duplicating machines what exactly is Mr. Helsinki ignorant of? > > > and makes impossible a definite answers leading to the first person > indeterminacy. > Is it really surprising that blurry ambiguous questions have blurry ambiguous answers? 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.
