On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> comp allows self-duplication. That is the key point.
>> If you really had complete information then you could make 2
>> predictions: 1) I Bruno Marchal will write in my diary "I Bruno Marchal am
>> now in Washington and only Washington" .2) I Bruno Marchal will write in my
>> diary "I Bruno Marchal am now in Moscow and only Moscow".
> > That's better. But still ignore the first/third person distinction.
I don't know what you're talking about. John K Clark, a third party outside
observer who also has complete information about the proceedings, makes the
exact same predictions that Bruno Marchal, the first person, does about
what he will write in his diary. And events will prove that both are
>> Both predictions will turn out to be 100% correct;
> > Not from the first person point of view,
I don't know what you're talking about. The first person or second person
or third person or the 99'th person can all be shown the entries from both
diaries proving that the predictions made by Bruno Marchal and John K Clark
were indeed 100% correct about what Bruno Marchal will write.
> the question was bearing on "I", not BrunoMarchal, which refers to a
> third person description. [...] You don't need to define it [I] to get the
> point that the proba on the localisation on the future sense of self is 1/2.
So you can't define "I" or even give a example of "I" that remains true for
more than a second, and you believe as I do that you are free to add
subtract multiply and divide "I" by any arbitrary integer; and yet you
still think assigning a probability to such a vague constantly shifting
uncountable specter means something so concrete you can give it a
probability that means something. I don't.
You say the probability of something to do with the non-defined ephemeral
thing called "I" is 1/2, but to me the meaning would be just as great (or
as little) if you had assigned a negative probability to it of -1/2, or a
imaginary probability of 1/2i; I have no idea what to do with any of these
probability figures including yours of 1/2, I don't see how I could make
use of any of them in any way.
> You ignore again the 1-3 distinction that I made precise.
I don't know what you're talking about. You admit you can't define "I" and
so although both the Washington and Moscow man use the word "I" without
hesitation when referring to themselves you can't know if one or both or
neither really deserves to have that title, and yet you still assign a
probability of 1/2 to something that is supposed to have something to do
with "I", although it's unclear exactly what. That sure does not sound very
precise to me!
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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at