On 22 Dec 2012, at 19:54, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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.

But you have been duplicated. from your future person points of view there will be only one future, even if there both in the 3p view. It is not ambiguous, just indeterminate from your present (in Helsinki) perspective, like in QM.





>The 1-view of the M-man, and the 1-view of the W-man.

Please note the use of the word "and".


Sure. It means I am talkng from outside.



> 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;

Not fake. just different. It has become your doppelganger. And vice versa in the 3p, but not in each 1p.




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.

Of course, but the question asked was on the future 1p as seen by the 1p, and *both* are right that they are in one city, so that the 1p views becomes non symmetrical. The duplication has break the symmetry.





>> 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 chance of being which who from the 1p perspective. Comp predicts that all 1-view will see one city.





>> 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

Ambiguous.


it is certainly identical in the 1p view, although the reverse is not necessarily true.

Sure.



 > but fail to answer the question asked.

Bruno Marchal does not understand the question asked

I am the one asking the question, so that remark makes not much sense.




so it's not surprising that John Clark is unable to give a answer that satisfies Bruno Marchal.

Because I see only hand waving. You got right all the pice of the puzzle, and you just don't plug them for unknown reason.





> 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.

On the contrary, MWI reduces the probability to the comp indeterminacy, making them particulary clear and without any magic, as it keep the 3P determinacy right.
Popularity is not an argument.

Bruno




  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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 .

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to