Lee Corbin writes:

[quoting Bruno Marchal]
> Why not choose D, that is "I will see 0 on the wall OR I will see 1
> on the wall."

Okay, now you have switched back to the prior (prediction)
level.

Here is the reason not to say that.  As the person who is about
to be duplicated knows all the facts, he is aware (from a 3rd
person point of view) that scientifically there will be *two*
processes both of which are very, very similar.  It will be
false that one of them will be more "him" than the other.
Therefore he must identify equally with them.  Therefore,
it is wrong to imply that he "I" will be one of them but not
the other of them.

But if you answer "I will see 0 on the wall OR I will see 1 on the wall"
then it makes it sound as though one of those cases will obtain but
not the other.  (This is usually how we talk when Bruno admits, for
example, that tonight he either will watch TV *or* he will not watch
TV.  But the case of duplicates is not like that.  In the case of
duplicates, it is a scientific fact that Bruno will watch TV (in one
room) and will not watch TV (in the other room).  In short, it will
be true that Bruno will watch TV and will not watch TV---simply because
there will be two instances of Bruno.)

Is there any way of asking the question such that the answer is "there is an even chance that I will see either a 1 or a 0"? For example, every time I flip a coin it *seems* that I get either heads or tails, and not both. The objective truth may well be that coin-tossing causes duplication and I do, in fact, experience both, but don't realise it. I am interested in asking and/or answering the question assuming this sort of ignorance. Can it be done, or is it linguistically as well as physically and logically impossible?

--Stathis Papaioannou

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

Reply via email to