2012/3/16 Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> > > > 2012/3/16 John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 8:47 AM, David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com>wrote: >> >> > What is intended by "the first person are no duplicable from their >>> first person point of view" is just the mundane assumption that any >>> subjective point of view is always limited to that of a single, localised >>> individual. >> >> >> Evolution has created us to be comfortable with that mundane assumption >> because the environment does not contain duplicating chambers, but there is >> nothing physically impossible or logically self contradictory about such >> machines. So the idea that a subjective point of view is always limited to >> that of a localized single individual is just that, a mundane assumption >> that worked well in the past but not necessarily in the future and is >> certainly not a law of nature, just a rule of thumb that has worked pretty >> well up to know. >> >> >This is very far from being any kind of "mystical" claim >> >> >> It's as mystical as the Roman Catholic idea of transubstantiation, >> although all scientific tests say it's just like bread and wine they claim >> there is a ENORMOUS difference and now it's really the body and blood of >> GOD; and in my symmetrical room thought experiment all scientific tests say >> there is no difference between the original and the copy, and even the two >> themselves can not subjectively tell themselves apart, yet you insist there >> is still a ENORMOUS difference between the two. Compared to that the >> Catholic's idea is almost sensible. >> >> >>> >it's just a statement about the limitations of ordinary experience. >>> >> >> Yes, but duplicating chambers are not ordinary, they involve >> extraordinary experience. >> >> > since by assumption each successor must be restricted to a single, >>> localised experience That's the whole point of this step in the UDA >>> reasoning. >> >> >> I know, and that's exactly the problem. >> >> > Can we accept it and move on? >>> >> >> You can do whatever you want, as for me I believe if a proof makes a >> blunder in the first sentence there is no point in reading more. >> > > So your point is that you would feel at both place at once ??? If that's > not an extraordinary claim... don't know what is. >
I would also remind you that in MWI context (and comp of course) differentiation (split) happens all the time at every interaction... yet if I accept MWI, my own experience is still singular and I don't have to posit duplication chamber... just accepting what Multiple World interpretation means (or comp, the 1st indeterminacy is common to both). Quentin > > Quentin > >> >> John K Clark >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to email@example.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. >> > > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.