Le 20-juin-06, à 09:43, Lee Corbin a écrit :

> I have before stated my long-held opinions on this,
> namely that it's best to regard one's duplicates
> as self. As a corollary, the "you" that ends up
> in one place is "100% you" and so is the other.

If you meant by self "my third person self", I agree.
if you meant  by self my first person self conceived in a third person 
way, I still agree.
If you talk about first person as first person can know them, I 
No person can feel to be at two places at once (assuming comp).

> Consider this alternative experiment: we reveal to
> you that every minute of the last two years you have
> had one thousand duplicates created in fake rooms,
> streets, passage ways, or in bed, wherever you happen
> to be.  At random, 999 are chosen to be immediately
> destroyed, with only the 1 at the end of each minute
> carrying on.

*Are* chosen or *were* chosen? I mean do you assume the experiment will 
be carried on, and that the next years I will be multiplied again in 
that way?
What do you mean by "destroyed", is it an absolute annihilation (which 
exists only in thought experiments and nowhere else), or a concrete 
annihilation (which I will survive by comp or Q-immortality).

> Oh, yes, you might be very philosophically upset.
> But it would end up making no real difference to
> you. You would find that you, as always, have more
> important things to worry about, and life would go
> on normally.

If you talk only about a past experience and promise me to stop 
multiplying me without my consent, I will either conclude that I have 
been very very very very ... lucky, or that you have find a way to make 
absolute annihilation (I doubt it though).

> No important difference exists between one person
> to whom this is happening, and his neighbor to
> whom it is not. They both feel similarly, and
> by hypothesis lead very similar lives.

OK, but just to be sure: would you say the same thing in case the copy 
are not destroyed, but send to some place P.
In that case I would say there is (at first sight) 999/1000 that in 
next minute I will be the one send in the place P, so that in the "long 
run", there is almost no chance I continue my normal life. I will be 
In case of absolute annihilation, I agree with you (on content, not on 
the way you arrive at the conclusion: the comparison between me and the 
neighbor is done in a third person way, and only the first person 
expectation should count. Let me illustrate why. Let us iterate 64 
times the B-->WM duplication experiments, except that
-1) I substitute the Hell for Moscow.
-2) In Brussels I am never aware I will be duplicated, I believe that I 
am just tele-transporting myself to Washington.

Then there is a high objective probability that I will find myself 
subjectively in Hell after some trips, but if you keep interviewing the 
one who is reconstituted in washington, obviously he will tell us 
everything is fine, given that by construction, you interview the lucky 
one. Those in Hell knows your reasoning is unconvincing.  You are doing 
statistic with a biased sample.

Again, if you were thinking about absolute annihilation I agree with 
you, but only in that case.

> For this reason, our concepts and language must
> adapt to reality, not try to make reality adapt
> to them.

We don't know reality, we can adapt ourself only to appearances, and 
bet those appearances hide some reality (and be wrong most of the time, 
but so we learn).



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to