On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:45 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 can.
> > 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

John, Bruno,

I wonder if your disagreement stems from different concepts of a self
sampling assumption Absolute Self Sampling Assumption (ASSA) vs. Relative
Self Sampling Assumption (RSSA).  Wikipedia seems to use the
Self-Indication Assumption to refer to ASSA (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Indication_Assumption ) and use
Self-Sampling Assumption to refer to RSSA (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Sampling_Assumption ).  More information
on their distinction is available on this thread (

Then again, perhaps John goes even further than ASSA or RSSA, in that he
(at least at times) appears to deny any interrelation or continuation
between observer moments, treating the H-man, W-man, and M-man as entirely
independent observer moments defined by their content.  Similar perhaps to
James Higgo's position that all we are and ever will be is but a single
lone thought ( http://higgo.com/quantum/fourreasons.htm ) which one will be

Yet, if this is what John really believes, I can think of no better reason
to "throw Science into the trash can" than if we are only single thoughts,
unable to make any form of prediction.  It is even worse than that, there
would be no reason to try to make coffee, or to save money in the bank, or
do anything for that matter, since what is is what is, and there is nothing
one can do to change or effect anything.


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