On 7/1/2012 9:15 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
> Suppose you predict "I will be in Washinton."
But if he was smart and knowledgeable of the situation (and the thought experiment would
be useless if he was not) that would NOT be his prediction, instead he would make 2
1) I Bruno Marchal will write in my diary "I Bruno Marchal am now in Washington and only
2) I Bruno Marchal will write in my diary "I Bruno Marchal am now in Moscow and only
> Then the Bruno in Washington will be right and the Bruno is Moscow will say,
I was wrong."
No, after the copying Bruno Washington and Bruno Moscow will both look at their
identical diary entries and both will conclude "I was right". And you, the third party
outside observer, will look at the behavior of both Bruno Washington and Bruno Moscow
and you will agree with the first person perspective of both of them that the accuracy
of their predictions was indeed perfect. There will be no indeterminacy and no confusion
between "1-pov" and "3-pov" and everybody will agree on what has occurred, unless of
course somebody makes the illogical assumption that there can be only one Bruno Marchal
You mistake my point, which was that one being right and one being wrong doesn't imply
there is something probabilistic happening. It's certain that one is right and one is wrong.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at