2012/11/27 John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> 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
>> > Of course people change moment-to-moment yet we identify them as 'the
>> same person'.
> > 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
> 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.
> 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@example.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at