On 21 Apr 2012, at 19:45, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
