On Tue, Jul 3, 2012  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> >> Suppose I send the same identical Email to both you and to Craig at the
> same identical time, you look at your copy and think " when John hit the
> send button on his computer he could not have predicted that I would get
> this copy of the Email and not the one Craig got,
> > It is the same. Leading to same experience, except one is (predictably)
> lived by me, and the other one 'experience, not mail) is lived by Craig.

I'm saying your experience would be EXACTLY the same if you had received
Craig's Email and he had received yours because they are identical and
interchangeable. I'm also saying that if you duplicated the entire city of
Washington and sent one Bruno Marchal to Washington1 and the other Bruno
Marchal to Washington2 then there would only be one Bruno Marchal having a
Washington experience.

> I don't see any indeterminacy here.

It's precisely the same situation with your duplicating thought experiment,
they don't differentiate until there is a difference between them, just as
the word suggests; so if there is any indeterminacy it is entirely a
function of the unpredictable nature of large cities and tells us nothing
about the nature of personal identity.

> > so it's a example of indeterminacy and all sorts of profound
> conclusions can be drawn from that fact". What makes this ridiculous is
> that the 2 Emails are identical and thus completely interchangeable. In the
> same way the man sent to Washington and the man sent to Moscow are also
> identical and thus completely interchangeable,
> > Before their differentiate, and the question is ask about the result of
> the differentiation.

The result of the differentiation is that you might see the White House
tomorrow and you might see the Kremlin, and if Everett is right you WILL
see the White House tomorrow and you WILL see the Kremlin. I can't be more
specific about that, not because of something to do with you but because of
the indeterminacy inherent in the entire physical universe that makes it
impossible to make perfect predictions. Nature might throw the White House
at you next and it might throw the Kremlin. And all this is not exactly
breaking news, its not some new discovery of yours, we've known about it
for nearly 90 years.

> >> and they will remain that way until the environments of Washington and
> Moscow, being different, change the two so they are different and no longer
> interchangeable. So "first person indeterminacy" is just the result of the
> unpredictable nature of what goes on in Washington and Moscow.
> > Nothing in W and M, relevant in the duplication experience, is
> unpredictable in W and M.

I don't know what that means. You seem to be saying that the activities in
Washington and Moscow are predictable but that can't be right.

> > You did not write any prediction (on the 1-pox, as asked) in the diary.
> You wrote the two outcomes,

Two different things happened, you interacted with Washington and you
interacted with Moscow so of course I wrote about 2 outcomes, if I had not
done so you would complain that my prediction was incomplete and you would
have been right.

> > I am in Washington and feel like I'm in Washington and only in
>> Washington and that is just what I predicted would happen. If that's not a
>> "1-view" what is?
>  > No. It was two 1-views.

I have no idea what a "two 1-views" is (are?) but regardless of what it is
apparently a feeling of being in Washington and only in Washington is just
not good enough to be a "1-view". So I repeat my original question, what is?

> I can predict the winning lotery ticket. It is enough to write
> 1) ticket 000000
> 2) ticket 000001
> 3) ticket 000002
> ...
> 1000000) ticket 999999.
> Wow. You are quite clairvoyant!

I don't know about clairvoyant but if every one of those lottery tickets
turned out to be correct then my prediction was a good one.

 > Try to use the diaries with respect to the question asked

My difficulty is not finding an answer but figuring out what the question
is. No matter what diary entry I come up with you keep saying it would not
disprove your theory because of blah blah point of view blah blah, so I
want you to tell me exactly what diary entry WOULD disprove your theory? If
you can't do that then it's not a theory and it's not a proof, its just

> You said it yourself. The one in W is only in Washington.


> How can he be satisfied with having written "1)" and "2)" in the diary?

Because there are now 2 John K Clarks and because 1+1= 2 from any point of

  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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to