On 20 Apr 2012, at 19:24, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>> I don't think so. You go on and on about the profound differences between various increasingly convoluted "views" and yet you can't give a single example of two things being identical by what you call "the 3-view" but not by "the 1-views themselves".

> You keep contradicting what I said, systematically. Give the quotes and be specific if you really want an explanation.

OK. On April 2 2112 among other things I said "I can understand your desire to gloss over this major difficulty", so on April 3 2112 you responded to that comment with:

"I thought you just grasped it. What major difficulty? The only one you have ever mentionned as been shown to be a confusion of 1-view and 3-view (or on the 3-view on the 1-views, and the 1-views themselves. Reread perhaps the preceding posts)."

I did reread the previous posts and they were just as clear as the above assortment of words. Not very.

I have just re-explained all this on the FOAR list. Please tell me (here if you want), what you don't understand. The 1-views are assimilated to the content of the personal diary that the candidate takes with him in the teleportation or duplication experiments. The 3- views are corresponding to what is roughly described by an external observer (i.e. not entering in the teleportation boxes).

Do you agree with the step 0? the step 1, the step 2?

Step 2 illustrates already, without duplication, the difference between the 1-view and the 3-view. We can vary arbitrarily the delays in step 2, changing considerably the 3-views, and this does not change the 1-view. This is sum up by: the 1-views remains unchanged for the introduction of delays. Are you OK with this?



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