On 17 Nov 2012, at 19:46, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> "You" mean the Helsinki guy.

OK, so if you are the Helsinki guy and the Helsinki guy is the guy who is still experiencing Helsinki


?
We just agreed that the helsinki man is the one who remember Helsinki, so that both the W and M man are still the Helsinki man.




then the answer to the question "what city will you see when you push that button?" is no city at all.

> To remain the Helsinki guy, you need only to remember having been the Helsinki guy.

OK, so if you are the Helsinki guy and the Helsinki guy is the guy who remembers being the Helsinki guy and BOTH the Moscow man AND the Washington man remember being the Helsinki guy then the answer to the question "what city will you see when you push that button?" is Washington only AND Moscow only,

But seeing W only and M only is a contradiction, from the 1p view. None of the copies will write in their unique diary "I see W only and I see M only".





because "you" HAS BEEN DUPLICATED. And no amount of peeing is going to get you out of this mess.

> There is no problem with the pronouns

Far from being a problem pronouns, especially personal pronouns, are absolutely essential for Bruno to communicate ideas, without them and the ambiguity they invariably produce the logical absurdity that Bruno's proof is based on would stand out in stark relief. Pronouns are good hiding places from that pesky thing called logical analysis.

Read AUDA where the pronouns are handled with the recursion theoretic tools, but this asks for more work. And you have problem only because you confuse the 1)view and the 3-view, so it is still more simpler to fix that misunderstanding.



> So now you agree that phenomenologically the comp indeterminacy is similar as the quantum indeterminacy

I don't know perhaps I do agree, but before I know for sure I'll first have to figure out what "comp" is,

We already agree. the meaning of comp is independent of what we derive from it. Comp is just a "digital" version of Descrates mechanism (roughly speaking the body functions like some machine)



and then figure out what phenomenological comp indeterminacy is; fortunately I already know what quantum indeterminacy is.

In QM ithout collapse? Then this should help you as the QM indeterminacy, in that case, can be seen as a particular case of comp indeterminacy.




> Try to move on step 4,

In other words try to forget that step 4 and all the steps after it are built on a foundation as sturdy as jello. Sorry I can't do that.

Well, then find a refutation of step 3, which does not confuse the 1 and 3 views, nor change the protocol.
I am all ears,

Bruno




  John K Clark


--
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 .

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