On 05/03/11 14:46, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Chalmers told me that first person indeterminacy does not exist, and not much more, and Bitbol never reply to me when I sent him my PhD.
I am still not sure if I correctly understand your concept of first person indeterminacy, though I have gone over your paper The first person computationalist indeterminacy many times. Your opening paragraph states "The notion of first person, or subjective, computationalist indeterminacy is a notion which makes possible to explain how, in a context of purely third person (objective) determinacy, experiments can be designed exhibiting, from the points of view of the subjects involved, a necessary lack of apparent determinate outcome", but for all known experiments and experiential reporting, there is always a determinate outcome. I imagine I am simply misunderstanding the language. Do you mean simply the apparent lack of determincy of Wigner's friend's experience of the experiment in Wigner's point of view? My confusion comes from the fact that from Wigner's friend's point of view, the point of view of the subject involved, the outcome is always determinate.

I was trying to establish the exact meaning of the phrase first person indeterminacy in an earlier conversation. I stated

By 'first person indeterminacy' in 1 below, I am reading this as the indeterminacy regarding the actual location and thus physical context / instantiation of this observer.

but your answer simply stated that I was making 'treachery to invoke the physical', and gave me no answer on the meaning of the phrase I was trying to clarify!

They seems to act like pseudo-religious philosopher to me. I still don't know if it is ideological or politics.
Are you referring to Chalmers, Bitbol or both?

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to