On 08 Nov 2012, at 16:44, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>>>> After the duplication all the John Clark realise that they are in only one city,

>>> And that is exactly what John Clark predicted would happen.

>> And John Clark is correct on this.

> But that was not yet the question asked, which concerns the experience that you (in Helsinki) will lived in the future.

But it is still not clear who "you" refers to and that is why pronouns should not be used. If "you" refers to the Helsinki man then "you" will experience no city at all because according to Bruno Marchal's thought experiment the Helsinki man is destroyed.

By step 1 we already know that only the body of the Helsinki man can be said to be destroyed. With step one we know that the Helsinki man will survive, in two examplars, in M and in W. Then the indeterminacy comes simply from the fact that in Helsinki, although he knows that he will survive, he cannot be sure that he (the Helsinki man, you) will feel himself to be the one surviving in W, or the one in M. The helsinki man knows in advance that he will not feel to be both at once, as both future "first person" will live only a singular, in once city, experience.



If the question is who "you" will turn into the answer is the Moscow man AND the Washington man and there is no reason to expect a single answer because YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED

Only the bodies have been duplicated. The first person is never duplicated from His/Her points of view. You are looking at yourself from the 3p view, which explains why you miss the correct comp answer. you just don't know where you will feel to be after pushing the button. You know only that you will feel to be in W or in M.
Odd, perhaps, indeterminate, certainly, but contradictory: no.



and when something has been duplicated the result is there are two things not one.

Only in the 3p picture.



All the confusion stems from the fact that Bruno Marchal blithely says that something has been duplicated but no effort is made to stop and think what that actually means.

>> John Clark correctly predicted that the Moscow man would see Moscow and the Washington man would see Moscow.

>But John Clark in helsinki is not asked what will see both men, but which men he will feel to be.

He? Whether the Helsinki man feels like he is the Moscow man and only the Moscow man or the Washington man and only the Washington man depends on one thing and one thing only, whether he's seen Moscow or Washington. In this case the Helsinki man has seen both so if Bruno Marchal were the Helsinki man then Bruno Marchal would feel to be in Washington only and Bruno Marchal would feel to be in Moscow only BECAUSE BRUNO MARCHAL HAS BEEN DUPLICATED.

Yes. And so, both Bruno Marchal will say that they were unable to be sure in advance which of of being in only M (resp W) they could happen to be. And so both Bruno marchal will assess the first person indeterminacy. You can replace Bruno Marchal by any program capable of doing some minimal amount of inductive inference, and having some means to localize themselves in a city.




>> before either saw either city John Clark does not even understand what is meant by "which one".

>This means that he lacks the cognitive ability to imagine what both the M-man and the W-man will feel.

But there is no M-man or W-man until they see Moscow and Washington,

Sure. But the question is asked to the Helsinki man, who will survive in that experience by comp. Both the W and M men are the Helsinki man.



it's what defines them, until then there is only the Helsinki man so it makes no sense to ask questions about "which man".

You fail to understand that the question is not "which man". The question is what experience will you feel. You know that by comp, you will feel an experience, and that it will be unique. So you can only be indeterminate about it.



The Helsinki man turns into the Washington man and the Helsinki man turns into the Moscow man and all of them feel like they are exactly the same person they were before and all of them feel like they are in one and only one city.

Exact.



And if destroyed the Helsinki man turns into nothing, that is to say there is no longer anyone experiencing Helsinki, and if he is not destroyed then the Helsinki man remains the Helsinki man. When the word "which" is included in a question it implies that there can only be one answer, but this is incorrect because YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED.

But *from* the 1p view, you are not (you don't feel) the split, like in Everett.




John Clark correctly predicted what will happen to everyone as can be verified by interviewing all the parties involved after the proceedings have concluded.

Not at all. You said W and M. So both will say that he was wrong, when betting on both W and M in Helsinki, as now they both agree to see only once city. And the questionwas not about identity or man, but only on their future *experience*.



And if Bruno Marchal has destroyed the Helsinki man John Clark should not be blamed if Bruno Marchal can't interview him afterward; if you let the poor fellow live he will say John Clark was correct about the Helsinki man too.

If the man in Helsinki is not destroyed, then the indeterminacy will bear on {H, W, M}, and the probability of being one of them is 1/3. That is step 5!




> "Which city" is asked to the Helsinki man

Which city will the Helsinki man feel to be in? Moscow and Washington

False. or if you prefer: only true for a third party. Both the M man and the W man will agree on that, as they don't feel to be in two cities.



because THE HELSINKI MAN HAS BEEN DUPLICATED.

> which has already understand that after pushing the button and localize himself he will see only one city

Exactly, but "he" is plural, he is not a singular pronoun because HE HAS BEEN DUPLICATED, so obviously the answer can not be singular and a list is required to answer the question.

Not all. the helsinki man know that in both city, he will FEEL to be in once city, and the question was bearing on that 1p, personal future feeling.



And obviously the answer is Moscow only and Washington only BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN DUPLICATED. Your claim to have discovered a new type of indeterminacy is just a convoluted restatement of the fact that one is not equal to two.

yes. the first indeterminacy is indeed a consequence of the fact that 1 ≠ 2. Notably. Good. can we go to step 4?




> the question is about which one,

John Clark wishes Bruno Marchal would be more clear, but John Clark surmises that the question must be about which city, it can't be about which man because before the duplication and the observation of different cities there was only one man; so the answer is Moscow and Washington because YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED.

We are all the same amoeba which has duplicate a lot since a very long time, and also evolved. But we feel different, locally. It is the same for this situation, but in a simpler context, which allows a bet in a special duplication experience.




> you admit that there is only one 1p,

Only 1p per person, but at last count there were 7.05 billion 1p's on this planet; and if YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED then "you" has become 2 people not one.

From a 3p perspective. But the question is about the future 1p perspective as seen by the future 1p perspective, and this 1p perspective does not contain a feeling of being split in two places. It is the exact same feeling of a simple teleportation, except that you will know intellectually that you might have a doppelganger in the other city. But you will feel to be in once place, and with the feeling that which one was not predictable in advance.




> The prediction is on the experience itself, so a list of experience (which is never experienced by any 1p, as you say yourself) does not make sense.

If YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED and "you" ask about what "you" will experience then a list is the only answer that does make sense.

Not at all. the list gives the future 1-views. But from the future 1- view perspective, the list omit the selection done by the 1p which mention only one city.

The probabilities can be justified by all the usual technic, except the Deutsch book method, but this can be done when duplicating population of machines. In that case, they can bet money internally in the populations, and those who bet on the binomial distribution can be show making the most statistically advantageous bets.




> Nobody has pretend that comp is contradictory. Just that you cannot predict which among W and M you will experience in the future of the Helsinki experiment.

Prove that a correct prediction can't be made!! I repeat my challenge, interview all the parties involved after the experiment and show what John Clark failed to predict, find someone who testifies he experienced something that John Clark did not predict. Do that and you've won the argument.

Keep in mind that W (resp M) will represent "I will feel to be in W".

1) W & M is false as a prediction, as the result will be W for one guy, and M, for the only other possible guy, and both contradicts "W and M".

For the 1p pov, I will feel (with certainty) X and I will feel (with certainty) Y entails I will feel (with certainty) both X and Y. That is false for the 3p-view of the 1p, but I insist that we are interested in the future 1p as seen by the 1p.



2) W is false as the M guy will say "oh, I was wrong"
3) M is false as the W guy will say "oh, I was wrong"

Only
4) "W or M" will be correct, and this is the indeterminacy. It is even a provably non constructive "or".




> There is no contradiction here, only indeterminacy,

It's so indeterminate you don't know who doesn't know it, or even what "it" is.

> you can ask the question to all the copies. Both will answer something like W and not M, or M and not W.

Exactly precisely as predicted.

> A correct prediction would have been W or M.

No! If that "or" is the exclusive "or" then that would have been quite obviously a INCORRECT prediction. If you don't believe John Clark about this then just interview the parties after it's all over and see for yourself. The correct prediction would have been both W AND M.

This contradicts what you say above, and the sum up I did just above. W and M would mean I will feel to be with certainty to be the man in W and to be the man in M. But this will simply never happen.

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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to