On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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). >
I don't know which assumption is better and I don't see how it matters, at least not now at our current state of ignorance. Nobody knows how many observers are possible, and even if we did nobody knows how many of those possible observers actually exist. I do know that in a thought experiment where lots of exact and near exact copies of John Clark are running around and somebody asks "what will "you" see?" it's rather helpful to know who the hell the pronoun refers to; Bruno says "you" refers to the Helsinki man but it's clear he doesn't mean it because in his next breath he says the Helsinki man is the Moscow man AND the Helsinki man is the Moscow man but "you" will not see Helsinki and Moscow. So who is "you"? > 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 > There is a connection from the present to the past in that both the W-man and M-man emember being the H-man and thus both are the H-man. However there is no connection from the present to the future because the W-man and the M-man don't know what the other is thinking seeing or doing and thus are not each other and have become separate people. As for the H-man himself, by that I mean the man who is still experiencing Helsinki, he can no longer look into the past or future or even the present because nobody is experiencing Helsinki anymore. So in the middle of this complex stew of a thought experiment somebody asks a question about what "you" will see I don't know what the pronoun refers to, and when it becomes increasingly clear that the questioner himself isn't sure who the pronoun refers to I get grouchy. > > there would be no reason to try to make coffee, or to save money in the > bank, or do anything for that matter, > But that should be no problem for believers in the "free will" noise, they think people do things for no reason all the time, in fact they're proud of it. 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.