>From a 3rd POV, there is no indeterminacy, we know there will be two you
after the duplication.

>From your 1st POV, even if you know it, you'll (both you) still feel
singular, and the you who was asked before the experience what he expect to
feel after the duplication was unable to predict which one of the WM guy it
will be, yet each one is only one.

If MWI is true, that happens every time the you/environment differentiates.
So while you insist it is gibberish to ask the guy before the experience
what he will feel, then in that condition every time you ask a question
about a future event about yourself, it is gibberish.

You keep asking who is this "you"... it is the usual you, as the one you
use in your everyday "gibberish" question about yourself if MWI is true.
(youhou \o/)

Quentin

2012/3/23 John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>

> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> > You are still avoiding the WM duplication.
>>
>
> There is no spliting in Many Worlds unless something is different,  if 2
> universes are identical  then they have merged and there is now only one
> universe.
>
>
> >> 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.
>>>
>>
>> > Sure. This does not invalidate the point I am making. It does not
>> address the point at all.
>>
>
> Then what the hell IS the point you are making?
>
> > Please come back to the reasoning. [...] Come back to the reasoning.
>> [...] Come back to the reasoning.
>>
>
> Is that the best retort you could come up with? Show me some reasoning and
> I'll come back to it.
>
>
> > In the thought experiment I am using, the content of the diaries are
>> equal up to some pages, and then they diverge.
>>
>
> And when the diaries diverge the person will too and become 2, both are
> the original person and neither is each other.
>
>
> > The experiencer tries to predict which branch they will live.
>>
>
> If the experiencer believes that when something is duplicated it remains
> singular then any prediction made regarding it will be gibberish.
>
> > You continue to avoid the points.
>>
>
> It's rather easy to avoid your points as you have NOT mentioned a single
> one, you just tell me to follow these wonderful but phantom points.
>
>
> > Follow the reasoning and you will see the purpose.
>>
>
> Dear god we're back to that again!
>
>
> >>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.
>>>
>>
>> >Like Brent said, the difference is between annihilation and no
>> reconstitution (= dying), and annihilation + reconstitution (=
>> teleportation, or duplication, etc.).
>>
>
> The fact of the matter is that the Bruno Marchal of noon yesterday has not
> been duplicated or teleported or reconstituted, the Bruno Marchal of right
> now remembers being him but he is different and has memories that other
> version did not have; so if you insist that the Helsinki man is dead then
> to be consistent you must say that Bruno Marchal of noon yesterday is dead,
> and if you insist that the Helsinki man has been annihilated then to be
> consistent you must say that Bruno Marchal of noon yesterday has been
> annihilated. Are you certain you really want to do this?
>
>
>
> > Please, answer my post of the 19 mars,
>>
>
> I don't know what 19 mars is and I thought I'd responded to all your posts
> but if I missed one where you made everything clear (I'm not holding my
> breath) then please resend it.
>
> >Things are rather simple.
>>
>
> Yes, but not simple in a good way.
>
>
> > You pretend that there is no 1-indeterminacy.
>>
>
> I insist that indeterminacy exists in every one of the many thought
> experiments proposed by members of this list during the last month, but you
> pretend to have discovered a brand new form of it never known before. I see
> no evidence you have done anything of the sort.
>
>
> > Then you have to explain to us how you predict the movie that you will
>> remember having seen when the movie-multiplication experience is completed.
>>
>
> Bruno Marchal has asked this many times but despite many requests for
> clarification of who "you" is  such a explanation, that would establish a
> new sort indeterminacy, has not been received.
>
> > and you seem to accept that 1-indeterminacy in some post, and then just
>> dismiss it as trivial.
>>
>
> I accept "1-indeterminacy" because as described by you it is identical to
> the indeterminacy in physics and mathematics that we've known about for a
> very long time, and I dismiss it as trivial for exactly the same reason. I
> want something new.
>
> > Are you under influence?
>>
>
> Yes, of logic.
>
>   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.

-- 
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