Hi Bruno Marchal and all,
Do you not realize that 1p far enough into the past (presumably accessible
to time travel), where your parents and past friends are still alive,
is a form of eternal life ?
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Time: 2012-12-22, 08:09:59
Subject: Re: Against Mechanism
On 20 Dec 2012, at 22:18, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> You are asking about the present first person point of view of someone,
> NO. read the question: it is about a future first personal event.
That is totally false! The Helsinki man is informing you about his PRESENT
first person state of mind, he may be preoccupied trying to guess about what
his future state of mind could be but that doesn't change the fact that you
cannot communicate with the future Helsinki man you can only ask questions to
the present Helsinki man and regardless of the subject of his thoughts he can
only tell you about his present state of mind.
>> Bruno Marchal has said, and John Clark agrees, that both the Moscow Man and
>> the Washington Man are the Helsinki Man, and so assuming that the Helsinki
>> Man believed the same thing and is rational, then the conclusion is obvious,
>> the Helsinki Man will say that the Helsinki man will see Washington AND
>In the 3p view,
Yes, and as I've said before if 2 things are identical in the 3p they are
certainly identical in the 1p, although the reverse is not necessarily true.
> but the question is about the future 1p view
In a world with duplicating chambers there is no such thing as "the" future 1p
Of course there is. There are two such future 1-view. The 1-view of the M-man,
and the 1-view of the W-man. If they don't exist, you would die, and comp is
false. The use "the" is just an emphasis on the fact that, although there are
two such view, they are felt unique by the experimenter.
>> For example: suppose the Washington Man said the Helsinki Man's prediction
>> in the past about a hypothetical first person point of view that would occur
>> in the future turned out to be wrong, would that mean that the Washington
>> man would no longer feel in his gut that he was the Helsinki Man? Of course
>> not! That's why to follow a chain of identity the way to go is from the
>> present to the past not from the present to the future.
>But we have to do prediction to confirm or refute a theory on reality, which
>is the present case.
Not with personal identity we don't! If you are like me and most people you
have made predictions about what you will do that turn out to be wrong, but
incorrect or not when that happens you still feel like you were the one that
made the prediction.
Exactly, and that is why if you predict W and M, both will rightly admit having
>>> This is just obviously wrong. It is correct in the 3p picture, but the
>>> question was about the 1p picture.
>> And that's the problem right there, THERE IS NO "THE" 1P PICTURE, THERE IS
>> ONLY "A" 1P PICTURE!
And so in a world with duplicating machines asking about "the" future 1p
picture is as silly as asking how long is a piece of string because it depends
on the string.
Then QM without collapse is refuted at once.
> It is not weird as it is only an indetermination on the person result after a
> self-duplication. the math are easy to do,
It's not just the math, everything about it is easy; 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, like in
QM-without-collapse, or in arithmetic.
>> both remember being the Helsinki Man, so although different both ARE the
>> Helsinki Man,
> Exactly, and that is why the question makes sense.
So does the answer, the Helsinki man will see both cities.
In the 3p view, that's correct, but fail to answer the question asked.
> If he was asked on the 3p view after the duplication.
Apparently asking somebody something "on the 3p" is supposed to be different
than just asking somebody, but I have no idea how.
Take the QS as example: the most probable 3p outcome is the guy died. The most
probable experimenter 1p outcome, is "I stay alive". When self-multiplication
exist, the 1p and 3p difference play a big role, in both comp and Everett QM.
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