On 08 Nov 2012, at 22:45, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> 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,

I agree, so all that's happened is that nobody is experiencing Helsinki anymore.

> in two examplars, in M and in W.

I agree completely, and by far the most important word is "AND".

> 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.

Or? OR?!! Bruno Marchal just said the Helsinki man will survive in two examples, in M AND in W"; and now Bruno Marchal is asking if the Helsinki man will survive in M OR W. It makes no sense!

Confusion between 1-view and 3-view.




This is a perfect example of how the indiscriminate use of pronouns can tie one into very silly logical contortions. Pronouns are just to save ware and tear on the typing fingers, so if a statement simply can not be made without the use of pronouns its a sure fire sine that the statement makes no sense and pronouns are needed to mask the confusion.

I have already explain what you are missing here.



> 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.

OK, but if "he" correctly predicted it where is the indeterminacy?

He cannot. The only certainty is the indeterminate "W or M".





> Only the bodies have been duplicated. The first person is never duplicated from His/Her points of view.

The Moscow man can see a continuous trajectory from being the Helsinki man to now being the Moscow man and the same is true of the Washington man, so the Helsinki man has obviously been duplicated.

But not his first person perspective. As he knows at the start.




> 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.

That's 5 uses of "you" in just 32 words. It's true that not using pronouns makes language sound a little awkward but sometimes in philosophy there is no alternative, and Bruno Marchal simply can not express the ideas that Bruno Marchal wants to express without using pronouns, and that tells John Clark something about the nature of Bruno Marchal's ideas.

Define "bruno marchal", and "john Clark".
The 3-I is well known to be definable by the Dx = "xx" trick, and the 1-I is defined by the knower, and we can use the Theaetetus method, thanks to incompleteness. But most people understand the 1-I more easily with the notion of connected memory. Both the guy in W and the guy in M can understand that thy are not at boyth place, so W & M was wrong (given that the question was bearing on the 1-I).




> 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.

Tommy has a apple inside box X and inside box Y, things are intermittent because Tommy is unable to be sure "which" box has a apple inside.

>> 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.

So what's the problem?

To evaluate your chance, in helsinki, to later feel to be the W or the M man after the duplication is done and the reconstitution boxes open.




> 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,

I said the Washington man will feel that he was the Helsinki man and I said the Moscow man will feel he was the Helsinki man, ask them and see if I was correct. I also said the Washington man will see Washington and the Moscow man will see Moscow, ask them and see if I was right about that too.

You forget to mention that the question was: where will you feel. You can do the thought experiment in a setting where in Helsinki you take some drug so that you become amnesic, and don't know more who you are. the same indeterminacy will remain.


> 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!

Then I'm glad I never read past step 3.

?




>>> 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,

I said a lot of stuff "above" but I see no contradiction.

You predicted "W and M" for the unique future 1-view. This is contradicted by both copies who can assess each that it was W or M, as they feel to be in only once city.

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