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 
Receiver: everything-list 
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 
>> Moscow.

>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 
been wrong.

>>> 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 

> And? 

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to