On 05 Nov 2012, at 16:14, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> But you know in davance that whatever happen, you will live only
John Clark knows with certainty that John Clark will see Washington,
and John Clark knows with certainty that John Clark will see Moscow,
and John Clark knows with certainty that John Clark will see one and
only one city, and John Clark knows with certainty that this is not
paradoxical because JOHN CLARK HAS BEEN DUPLICATED.
Define "John Clark".
Well, don't even try, the semantic of proper name is the most
difficult unsolved problem in philosophy. Comp gives hints, but this
is more complex than what we are discussing here.
And after its all over and the dust has settled John Clark can see
that John Clark's Helsinki prediction, that was made before all this
started, was completely accurate.
I don't see this at all. After the duplication all the John Clark
realise that they are in only one city, and that they were unable to
predict which one. So both of them understand that this peculiar
experience was not predicable.
> There are two 1p, as seen from the 3p view
A third party has only one view, the third party's own; John Clark
can't make any sense out of "two 1p as seen from the 3p view".
You did introduce the 3p view on the 1p views, which makes indeed
sense, as it is the 3p view on the 1p views that we can attribute to
another, when not being solipsistic. You said that after the
duplication the 1-views of the John Clark have been duplicated, and
this contradict what you say now.
I understand the two ways of speaking, but it is better not to change
them during the discussion as it introduces confusion.
> but you know in advance that you will live, only one 1p view, from
your next 1p view.
Just that short sentence contains "you know" and "you will live" and
"your next 1p view" with no clear understanding of who the "you" is
that is supposed to know or who the "you" that will live or who the
"you" is that will view something because YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED.
You might try shorter sentences.
When "you" has been duplicated stop using pronouns or all statements
will be ambiguous! When the self has been copied and pronouns
continue to be used as before as if nothing had happened then
confusion always results.
On the contrary. Indexical 1p and 3p are much more clear, and admits
clear mathematical definition (using computer science, or the Dx =
"xx" method that I have often explain wand which is the base of AUDA).
> Again and again and again, you answer on the future 1views
And again and again Bruno Marchal says YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED and
then gives them radically different experiences and then chastises
John Clark for giving a list rather than a single answer when the
question "what will "you" see?" is asked.
yes, and this should pose no problem at all, given that YOU (in
Helsinki) believes that you will feel to survive in necessarily one
place, by comp, and it as asked which one, and both will answer a
precise city, as the question was bearing on their current personal
feeling, and so both will understand that the list did not provide the
answer. Now they know better.
But if 2 different questions are asked
Only one question is asked, to only one guy: "Where will you feel to
be after the duplication?"
then one should expect 2 different answers.
If you reason like that in quantum QM without collapse, and if you
look at the position of an electron in hydrogen atom, you have to
answer "I will find the electron is everywhere".
If Bruno Marchal wants clearer answers then Bruno Marchal should ask
clearer questions by NOT USING PRONOUNS.
No pronouns have a far simpler semantic than proper name.
>> 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.
If before they see either city the two are not identical then the
duplicating chamber is not working properly and Bruno Marchal's
thought experiments are convoluted enough without introducing poorly
maintained machinery into the mix.
The question, asked before the experience, is precisely asked about
the personal feeling after the experience.
> The question is about your future 1p.
John Clark does not know what the question is
You opush on a button, and you look around. What will you see.
By comp you know you will survive, and feel to be in only city.
There is no paradox, no contradiction, but just a first person
indeterminacy in Helsinki, about which city you will see.
nor, with all these duplicates running around, who "your" refers to,
but John Clark does know that John Clark's future point of view will
continue to be John Clark's point of view.
> 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.
John Clark will feel to be only in Washington and John Clark will
feel to be only in Moscow and John Clark will know that was exactly
what John Clark predicted yesterday when John Clark was in Helsinki.
And John Clark has a far deeper understanding of the question than
Bruno Marchal had.
Define "John Clark". I did define the 1p and 3p views, which is enough
to get the simple fact that you (the usual one, in Helsinki) have to
be indeterminate in Helsinki on which city you (both of 1-you, all
possible 1-you) will lived after the duplication.
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