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 everything-list@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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 everything-list@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