2012/11/27 John Clark <[email protected]> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > it's not a question of keeping their brains syncronized. They will >> *never* be in syncrony. >> > > Never is a long time. And two atomic clocks can run in synchrony even > though they are sensitive to far far astronomically far thinner slices of > time than anything biological. > > > Even though the same information is sent to Moscow and Washington, the >> processes of reconstructing the man from Helsinki will not be identical; >> the non-linearities and random effects like cosmic rays and K40 decays will >> mean the two clones are already different before they have enough brain to >> think anything. >> > > Sure in the real world it's hard to isolate things completely from the > environment, but this is a thought experiment so anything that doesn't > violate the basic laws of physics is fair game; what's more this is about > philosophy and everybody knows philosophy has nothing to do with the real > world. > > >> > Of course people change moment-to-moment yet we identify them as 'the >> same person'. >> > > Yes. > > > So I think the point of this is that the continuity of identity relies >> entirely on the memory of the two clones - their shared memories of the >> Helsinki man. There is no other sense in which they can be considered 'the >> same' >> > > Until the environment changes one but not the other there may be 2 bodies > and 2 brains but there is only one mind, but when one remember something > the other doesn't they differentiate, but as long as they still remember > being the Helsinki man they both are the Helsinki man. >
Yes but both feels unique, they have a unique POV be it W or M. We start from one unique POV and we get two unique POV, we never get one POV that encompass W and M. The indeterminacy is if you take the W guy, he was the H guy, he pushed the button and then he is the W guy and not the M guy, he couldn't have know he would be when he was the H guy that he would end at W, same thing in M if you replace the W by M. There is a probability 1/2 of being the W guy or the M guy in this protocol. It is a valid question to ask what is the probabilty. Imagine the same experiment in MWI setup and you play loto, the probability to win is 1/175000000000, that means 1/175000000000 of next you will win and 174999999999 will not... I don't see why you relunctantly accept probability calculus and the question within the comp frame and you accept it in the MWI... it seems to me you should reject both. Quentin > 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 [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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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.
