On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> >>John Clark keeps saying that after the duplication John Clark will be in
>> both places.
> > Not from its personal subjective view (1p).

Pronouns are Bruno Marchal's crutch and now "it" joins the pantheon.

> >>  Where subjectivity is concerned if things are identical from a third
>> person perspective they are certainly identical from any first party one.
>> If you think I'm wrong give me a counterexample.
> > They are not identical. One body is reconstituted in W, and the other in
> M.

Position is a very poor way to establish personal identity, you'd become a
different person every time you take a walk, or the Earth rotates on its
axes. In fact how do you even know what position you or your copy are in?
If you instantly exchange the position of you and a identical copy of you
inside identical rooms in Washington and Moscow neither you nor the copy
will notice the slightest difference. And an outside observer will not
notice a difference either. The very universe itself will not notice that
any exchange has occurred! Objectively it makes no difference and
subjectively it makes no difference. If the difference is not objective and
the difference is not subjective then that rather narrows down your options
in pointing out just where that difference is.

Ever hear of The Identity Of Indiscernibles? The philosopher who discovered
it was Leibniz about 1690. He said that things that you can measure are
what's important, and if there is no way to find a difference between two
things then they are identical and switching the position of the objects
does not change the physical state of the system. Leibniz's idea turned out
to be very practical, although until the 20th century nobody realized it,
before that his idea had no observable consequences because nobody could
find two things that were exactly alike. Things changed dramatically when
it was discovered that atoms have no scratches on them to tell them apart.
By using The Identity Of Indiscernibles you can deduce one of the
foundations of modern physics the fact that there must be two classes of
particles, bosons like photons and  fermions like electrons, and from there
you can deduce The Pauli Exclusion Principle, and that is the basis of the
periodic table of elements, and that is the basis of chemistry, and that is
the basis of life. If The Identity Of Indiscernibles is wrong then this
entire chain breaks down and you can throw Science into the trash

> So you agree now that the situation is equivalent, with respect to
> probability, for QM and comp?

Comp is your thing not mine and I have no idea if its equivalent to QM.

 >>Until one duplicate sees Moscow and the other duplicate does not the two
> brains produce first person experiences that neither a third party nor the
> first party itself can distinguish between; and if there is only one thing
> it's nonsensical to ask "which one?" about anything.

>Again, what you say is obvious, and non relevant.

Not relevant?!  There are 2 cities and if there are all identical then
there is only one Bruno Marchal regardless of how many brains and bodies of
his are around, so it's meaningless to ask the question "which one will see
Washington?" because there is nothing to choose from, at that point there
is only one. Now it is possible that the environment of Washington will
change one of those copies into the Washington man and that man will be the
one the environment of Washington changes. What else do you expect to say
about it?

> he question is asked to the H-man, about which city he will see

 Pronouns are Bruno Marchal's crutch.

> 1) In Helsinki you are put under anesthesia, then sent to W or to M,
> according to a random coin choice. You wake up in a room, open the door and
> see that you are in a city.
 2) same protocol as in step 3, except that the annihilation is done when
> you are under anesthesia.

I don't remember what step 3 is, and if we're talking about what things
will be like after something was annihilated I don't see how it matters if
it was done under anesthesia or not,

>The very fact that you are doing remark like that show that you agenda is
> just being negative about me,

I have nothing against you and seem a nice enough fellow, but you did say
"the notion of Löbian machine is completely standard" and that is not true.

> If you got the 3-Ed right, you might have got the 3-view on the 1-Ed
> right, but not their personal 1-view on those 1-view, as they are unique.

Ah this explains everything, you believe in the soul and the duplicating
chamber can duplicate anything except for the soul. I don't.

> >>> "W" represents "the first person experience
>> >> Who's first person experience?
> >Of the guy opening the door and seeing W.

Oh you mean the guy who is turned into the the Washington man by the
environment. And you want to know who that guy is. Well he's the guy who
was turned into the the Washington man by the environment and before that
he was the guy who was not turned into the the Washington man by the
environment. I don't know how you expect to get more specific than that.

 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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to