On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> it's true that after the duplication there will be 2 first person > Bruno Marchal points of view, but the problem is that before the > duplication there is only one first person point of view at it is here the > question is asked about the future state of "you" and demands are made for > one and only one answer. > > > Of course, as the guy is duplicated, and the question is about a future > first person points of view, > That is incorrect and I'm surprised at such a elementary error in logic. The question is about a PRESENT first person point of view about what that person guesses a FUTURE first person point of view will be. > which is single > With the stipulation that there can be one and only one correct answer, and that is also a error. >> John Clark has been complaining about the unfettered use of personal > pronouns in a world with duplicating chambers for a long time now, and yet > those who disagree with John Clark continue to use those pronouns as > frequently as ever, it seems that those people just cannot help themselves. > If you read the post you can see that I have no more use pronouns for a > whole. I use "H-man, W-man, M-man, > The few times that was attempted it did not work because Bruno Marchal does not know who the Helsinki Man is. About half the time Bruno Marchal implicitly defines the Helsinki Man the same way John Clark does, as anybody who remembers being the Helsinki Man; in which case the probability of the Helsinki Man seeing Washington in the future is 100%. But the other half of the time Bruno Marchal implicitly defines the Helsinki Man as someone who is currently experiencing Helsinki; in which case the probability of the Helsinki Man seeing Washington in the future (or anything else for that matter) is 0% because in the future nobody will be experiencing Helsinki anymore. These definitions and not congruent, and if that wasn't bad enough under neither definition is the probability 50%. >> And Bruno Marchal never explains which of those two first person points > of view "you" should put feet into > > Wong. I told you: all of them. Good, then the probability Bruno Marchal will see Washington is 100% and the probability Bruno Marchal will see Moscow is 100%. > You get stuck in the easy part of the derivation. > If that was the part of the proof that was the clearest and most obviously true then I'm very glad I didn't try to read more. 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.