On 08 Nov 2012, at 22:45, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
