# Re: Nothing

```
On 21 Apr 2012, at 19:45, John Clark wrote:```
```
```
```

```
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
```
```
> 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
```
```
Your proof hinges on the fundamental difference between this 1-view and 3-view stuff but you haven't unambiguously nailed down what you mean by those terms as you must if you want to use them in a mathematical proof.
```
```
Quite contrary. People needs only to agree on the basic principles used in the reasoning. It is the (semi-)axiomatic method, which is what we use in any applied field.
```

```
In the first place just because a outside observer sees somebody write something in a personal diary does not prove that is what a person feels,
```
Of course. But it is, once we assume the comp hypothesis.

```
it does not prove that is a description of the subjective experience (or the "1-view" in your obscure terminology) or is even proof that a 1-view, any 1-view even exists. The only "1-view" you know for a fact to exist is your own.
```
```
How do you know that about me? Answer: because you assume there is a feeler behind this sentence. With comp, we agree that the copy will feel like you, and among the default hypotheses, we assume that the guy feeling to be in Washington will not perversely write "I am in Moscow". So you are right, but not relevant as far as the validity of the reasoning is concerned.
```

```
```
```
In the second place despite my repeated requests you can not give me a single example of something identical from the "3-view" but not from the "1-view"
```
```
It told you an infinity of times that this is impossible, and that I have never pretend the contrary anywhere.
```

```
and I've lost track of how many times you've chastised me for "misunderstanding" and not looking at things from the "1-view" which is supposed to be very different.
```
```
In case the 3-view have diverged, like after opening the teleportation/ duplication boxes.
```

```
```
```
> Step 2 illustrates already, without duplication, the difference between the 1-view and the 3-view.
```
```
If things are identical from the 1-view they may or may not be identical from the 3-view, BUT if they are identical from the 1-view then they are always identical from the 1-view.
```
Absolutely so.

```
```
>We can vary arbitrarily the delays in step 2

```
Delays are a needless complication that add nothing to the thought experiment.
```
```
Just wait for the sequel. So you agree with step 0, 1, 2. And all your attempts to refute step 3 have been debunked by many people here.
```What about step 4 and 5, and 6 (recently posted on FOAR)?

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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