# Re: Autonomy?

```
On 01 Jul 2012, at 19:26, John Clark wrote:```
```
```
```On Sun, Jul 1, 2012  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

```
>> There are incompatible from the "1-pov" ONLY if you assume there can be only one Bruno Marchal
```
> "1-pov" means "1-pov" from the 1-pov view.

That's real nice, but the predictions written down in advance were:

```
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".
```
```
Without making silly assumptions like there can be only one Bruno Marchal
```
```
That is not a silly assumptions. It is a consequence of computationalism. After the duplication and differentiation, there is only one Bruno Marchal from the points of view of all Bruno Marchal.
```This shows that you don't really make the thought experiment.

```
show me how these predictions were wrong from ANY perspective you care to name.
```
```
You don't give a prediction. You gave two predictions. You "1) + 2)" only describe the domain of the 1-indeterminacy.
```

```
```
> There is only one.

```
Even if there is "only one" I they third party outside observer agree with you, the "1-pov" from the 1-pov view" about your diary entry and it's accuracy.
```
```
> Even if I am duplicated into 10^100, all of them will have a unique pov.
```
```
If there were 10^100 cities then before the experiment you would write down 10^100 predictions in your diary and after the experiment all 10^100 Brunos would read what they had written in their diary and say "I was right".
```So where is this "first person indeterminacy" you keep talking about?
```
```

If "1) + 2)" means "1) AND 2)": both will know the prediction was wrong.
```
If "1) + 2)" means "1) OR 2)": both will agree it was correct, but that OR was necessarily non constructive, and this confirms the 1- indeterminacy. Same with "1) + 2) + ... + 10^100)".
```

```
>> just look and see what was written in the diary before the experiment started, it's right there clear as a bell in black and white. So where is this spectral "first person indeterminacy" you keep talking about?
```
```
> The incompatible experience "I feel to be in M" and "I feel to be in W". After the experience we can interview the two copies, and they will confirm it.
```
```
Yes, they will confirm that they feel exactly as they predicted they would feel, and there was nothing incompatible in the prediction.
```
Only if "+" is interpreted as an "OR", confirming the indeterminacy.

```
```
```
> It helps to understand that from the 1-pov, the experience was not predictible.
```
```
You, Bruno Marchal, are now in Washington and you write in your diary "I Bruno Marchal am now in Washington and only Washington".
```
```
Yes. And I know I am not the one in Moscow. From my first person perspective, I live a selection, and I have no mean to have predicted it.
```

```
Then you, Bruno Washington, receive a fax from Bruno Moscow and see that he wrote in his diary "I Bruno Marchal am now in Moscow and only Moscow". Please show me what was in error in the predictions from ANY point of view.
```
Let us write more completely your "1) and 2)" predictions:

```
1) "I find myself in Washington, and realize that I could not have predicted that particular outcome, and I guess now that the question was bearing on that, so I got eventually the 1-indeterminacy point". 2) "I find myself in Moscow, and realize that I could not have predicted that particular outcome, and I guess now that the question was bearing on that, so I got eventually the 1-indeterminacy point".
```
```
So they both eventually understand that their first person povs was indeterminate on "1) and 2)", and that the "+" was an OR, as it was clear at the start for those who take into account the difference between 1-pov and 3-pov. I have really no clues why you keep NOT taking that difference into account. In fact you do, as with the 1)+2), but you keep describing the 3-view on the 1-views, instead of listening to each reconstituted person, for whom the "+" can only be interpreted as an OR.
```I don't think anyone else but you miss that distinction.

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