On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> In a world with duplicating chambers there is no such thing as "the" >>> future 1p view. >>> >> >> Of course there is. There are two such future 1-view. >> > > Then as I said, there is no such thing as "the" future 1p view, there is > only "a" future 1p view. > > >The 1-view of the M-man, and the 1-view of the W-man. >> > > Please note the use of the word "and". > > > that is why if you predict W and M, both will rightly admit having been >> wrong. >> > > Yes, the Moscow Man would say it was wrong if he thought (as no doubt many > would) that only he is the Helsinki Man and the Washington Man is just some > kind of fake; however I believe the Moscow Man is NOT right about the > nature of the Washington man and there is no reason to think the Moscow Man > is any sort of final authority on the Washington Man. > > >> the one that sees Washington is the Washington Man and the Washington >>> Man is the one who sees Washington. What more do you want to know about it? >>> What more is there to know? >>> >> >> > > The technic to predict the future when we are multiplied, >> > > In the above I gave the precise technique for determining which city will > be seen by who. What more do you want to know about it? What more is there > to know? > > >> the Helsinki man will see both cities. >>> >> >> > In the 3p view, that's correct, >> > > And as John Clark has said over and over, if something seems identical in > the 3p view it is certainly identical in the 1p view, although the reverse > is not necessarily true. > You are misapplying this rule. This rule is most often comes up in philosophy of mind, where it is usually agreed that two brains in the same physical state will possess the same minds and the same consciousness. That is not what is at issue here and it is not being disputed by anyone. Your error is that you are generalizing this rule beyond its domain and you wrongly conclude it means there can never be any experimental outcome regardless of whether it is analyzed and observed by an external third person, or experienced first-hand through the first-person. This is plainly wrong, as Bruno pointed out in the quantum suicide experiment, or even just Schrodinger's cat from the cat's perspective. Once you see this is true, perhaps then you will finally try to put yourself into the shoes of the H-man, and perhaps then you will make some progress. > > > > but fail to answer the question asked. > > > Bruno Marchal does not understand the question asked so it's not > surprising that John Clark is unable to give a answer that satisfies Bruno > Marchal. > > > Take the QS as example: the most probable 3p outcome is the guy died. >> > > If many worlds is correct then from the 3p quantum view everything happens > and the very meaning of probability becomes fuzzy. And by the way I think > that is the major reason that the many world's interpretation is not more > popular than it is. > Deutsch et al. have solved the probability problem. As Tegmark commented: "The critique of many worlds is shifting from 'it makes no sense and I hate it' to simply 'I hate it'." Jason -- 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.
