On Wed, Mar 21, 2012  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>> This illustrates the problem I have with your ideas, it's not your
>> mathematics it's the assumption you make right at the start which is the
>> foundation for everything else.
> > Which assumption?

Your assumption that if a identical copy of you is made everything may seen
identical to a third party but to itself, to the copy and the original,
they would somehow have different viewpoints even if everything they saw
was the same and they remained identical. I think that is just plain wrong.
Lately you seem to be equivocating somewhat on this point and everybody has
a right to change their mind, but if you do then you'll have to rewrite
your proof from page 1 because that assumption was important.

> Those admit precise and simple definition, related to the duplication and
> multiplication thought experience.
> First person = content of a diary bring in the duplication devices.

OK, but the original and the copy will both write in their diaries "I
walked into the duplicating chamber, the machine was turned on and a copy
of me appeared right in front of me face to face", the copy and the
original agree on what occurred, so according to you the first person
perspective, the one that both you and I believe is most important, is
identical; so there is only one perspective, one consciousness.

> Third person = content of a diary of an external observers.

OK, but the third person observer will write in his diary "the original
walked into the duplicating chamber, the machine was turned on and a copy
of him appeared right in front of him face to face", the third person
agrees on what happened with the first person, he agrees with both the copy
and the original.

> First person plural = content of the diaries of a collection of person
> duplicated together.

I don't see the point of this one because according to you (and me too) if
the viewpoint is identical then the consciousness of all of them is
identical, so the word "plural" serves no purpose and just creates

>>but you can't give a scrap of evidence that such differences actually
>> exist,
> >Just look at the content of the diaries.

I did, if they say the same thing then their consciousness is identical
from their viewpoint and my viewpoint and your viewpoint and the Easter
Bunny's viewpoint and ANY viewpoint; and if the diaries are different then
they are different people from ANY viewpoint.

> It contains statements like "I predict that I will feel to be in W or in
> M, I am in M, so I win", pr "I predict that I will see Flying circus, but I
> see nothing recognizable, so I fail", etc.

If the purpose of all this "predict" stuff is to find a clear continuous
path that establishes what is meant by "I" then it's like pushing on a
string, you're doing it backwards, you've got to do it from the present to
the past not from the present to the future. Looking back the Washington
man remembers being the Helsinki man so they both are part of the same I,
and the Moscow man remembers being the Helsinki man so they both are part
of the same I, but the Moscow man does not remember being the Washington
man so they are not part of the same I.

> I have no real clue what you are talking about.

I could be wrong but I have a hunch you do have a clue what I'm talking
about but you're trying to convince yourself that you do not.

> If the guy annihilated die, then he would say that P(M) = P(W) = 1/2, and
> there would be no 1-indeterminacy.

First of all you seem to make a distinction between dying and being
annihilated that I do not understand, and second, if either of those things
had happened to you you wouldn't be making any predictions, you wouldn't be
saying anything at all.

  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 

Reply via email to