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

> You are the one pretending being able to predict what happens after
> pushing the button, but you have always given a list of what can happen,
> which is not a prediction.

A list is necessary because there are 2 things, if I know they are going to
have different fates then I cannot just give one answer. And if the 2 are
identical I can't single out one and say this one will have fate X while
that one will have fate Y, and because they are identical it would be a
useless prediction even if I could.

> You did not show a flow, just a confusion between 1p and 3p.

Oh for heaven's sake Bruno, do you really believe I don't understand the
difference between the first and third person point of view?

>> I have no duplicating machine but I still don't know if my environment
>> will include rain tomorrow, but I can't find anything of philosophical
>> interest in that fact .
> This is not the same form of indeterminacy. The impossibility of
> predicting the weather is due to the deterministic chaos.

In the first place pure deterministic chaos probably does not exist, and
even if it did it would not be predictable because you'd have to know the
initial conditions with infinite and not just astronomically good
precision, and because if you wished to get a answer before the event
happened the computation would generate so much heat it would create a new
Big Bang.

>> So when you say "The question was asked to the Helsinki man" you are
>> asking a question to a man who's body has been destroyed.
> No, the question is asked before he pushes on the read/cut button.

I'll bet you don't even remember the question, it was "What is the
probability the Washington man will write in his diary he sees Washington?"
and I said the answer was 100%. For some reason you believed my prediction
was wrong.

If you want John Clark to make other predictions about what the Helsinki
man will write in the Helsinki man's diary under various circumstances John
Clark will do so, but because this involves personal identity for clarity
please don't use any pronouns in the question.

> The guy knows that he might very well be the guy in Moscow,

And this illustrates what a muddle pronouns can cause; but yes it's true,
the Helsinki man knows that the man in Moscow will be the Moscow man. Big

> so he cannot assert that he will *feel* with 100% chance to be the one in
> Washington. Again you confuse the 3-view and the 1-view.

And again you are confused by pronouns.

> from the first person view, as he knows that after pushing the button he
> will find himself being in only one city, not in two cities simultaneously.

Yes but John Clark sees nothing paradoxical or contradictory about that,
its just odd; and the only reason its odd is that were not accustomed to
that sort of thing and the reason for that is that duplicating machines,
although they violate no laws of physics are, with current technology, hard
to make. And that could change.

> You pretend that there is 100% chance that he will feel to see
> Washington, and 100% chance he will feel to see Moscow and yet you agree
> that there is 100% chance he will see only one city

If Bruno Marchal sees a contradiction in that its because pronouns have
gotten the better of Bruno Marchal yet again.

  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