# Re: First Person Indeterminacy (new attempt) (was Theology or not theology)

`On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:`
```
> The experience consists in being duplicated each day, for ten days in a
> row.
>

Oh dear, Is this really necessary?

> He is duplicated in two similar rooms, except for a big "1" painted in
> the wall of one of these rooms, and a big "0" painted on the corresponding
> wall in the other rooms
>

I hope you do realize that if one copy sees a "0" and another copy sees a
"1" then the identical copies are no longer identical and they
differentiate into different people. If that's the point you're trying to
make there is no need for things to be so elaborate.

> The question which is asked to Arthur, specifically, is to predict if he
> will see a 0, or a 1 on the wall, and if he will get a cup of tea.
>

I haven't even finished reading this post but already I see a potential
pronoun land mine, the dreaded "he", a word that threatens to render the
entire exercise useless.

> I duplicate him in the two rooms, and then I wake up and interview them,
> but separately, and this each day, reiterating the duplication for all the
> resulting copies. Obviously I will have a lot of work the tenth day,
> because I will have to interview 1024 copies, or more simply to review 1024
> diaries,
>

I can't help but think that adding this ridiculous complication was done to
hide, perhaps even from yourself, that all that is going on here is that
there is no way for poor old Arthur to make a prediction if he will see a 0
or a 1 that is better than the laws of probability. In other words ALL the
different Arthurs (and they are all different because they all saw
different things) can only guess if they will see a 0 or a 1. What is new
here?

> A-110 "Hmm... perhaps "010101?"
> A-111 "No idea what the hell is going on"
>

I'll tell you exactly what the hell is going on, different people see
different things. Is this really a revolutionary discovery?

> Arthur try to predict his 1-stories,
>

And in general Turing Machines like Arthur can not predict their 1-stories,
they don't know if they will stop until they do. I ask again what is new
here?

> Note that you don't even need to attribute consciousness to Arthur.
>

Obviously, no experiment can directly observe consciousness.

> I can't say it more easily and clearly: the 1-person indeterminacy is the
inability to predict the content of the personal diary

Well I can say it more easily and clearly, 1-person indeterminacy is
indeterminacy period. And actually, "the inability to predict the content
of the personal diary" is not only a trait we share with Turing Machines it
is the only definition of "free will" (other than a sound made by the
mouth) that is not circular gibberish.

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
For more options, visit this group at

```