--- On Tue, 2/10/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/2/11 Jack Mallah <jackmal...@yahoo.com>:
> > 2)  If the data saved to the disk is only based on A1
> (e.g. discarding any errors that A2 might have made) then
> one could say that A1 is the same person as B, while A2 is
> not.  This is causal differentiation.
> 
> Yes, but I'm assuming A1 and A2 have identical content.

That actually doesn't matter - causation is defined in terms of 
counterfactuals.  If - then, considering what happens at that moment of saving 
the data.  If x=1 and y=1, and I copy the contents of x to z, that is not the 
same causal relationship as if I had copied y to z.

> > 3)  If I am defined as an observer-moment, then I am
> part of either A1 or A2, not even the whole thing - just my
> current experience.  This is the most conservative
> definition and thus may be the least misleading.
> 
> This is the way I think of it, at least provisionally.

OK.

> But the point is, I do look at the clock and I do know that I am A, with 
> probability 1, and therefore that I will soon be B with probability 1.

That contradicts what you said above about being an observer-moment.  If you 
are, then some _other_ observer-moments will be in B, not you.




      


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to