On 03 Nov 2012, at 18:28, John Clark wrote:

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,

But you know in davance that whatever happen, you will live only one thing. There are two 1p, as seen from the 3p view, but you know in advance that you will live, only one 1p view, from your next 1p view.

Again and again and again, you answer on the future 1views, as decribed by the 3p view, but the question is about the 1p views, from the 1p views. And here, both the 1p view will concede living only half of the list above, and can, I hope grasp that the question was about that, eventually.

if I know they are going to have different fates then I cannot just give one answer.

You must make the work of putting yourself at the place of each of them.

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.

Irelevant as they are not identical.

> 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?

No, I see that in some paragraph you get it, and accept that there is an indeterminacy, and then later pretend that there is no indeterminacy. You are just pretty irrational on this.

You are the one that nobody understand here.

>> 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.

I repeat the question is asked in Helsinki. Let us keep straight the protocol of sane04, as to not introduce any confusion.

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 question is about your future 1p. Personal identity is another matter.

> 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.

The use of the 1p is very simple with the definition given.

> 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,

No one has ever pretend it is paradoxical or contradictory about that. But with the definition of 1p, it shows that something is indeterminate.

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.

No it your prediction which is refuted by the two copies. One will say I feel to be only in W and the other will say I feel to be only in M, so BOTH will that they (John Clark) was wrong in Helsinki , or that he did not understand the question.



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