On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> 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. > Yes. > from your future person points of view > In a world of duplicating machines there is no such thing as "your" future person point of view, there is only "a" future person point of view, and in none of those views can anybody in the present know much about. > there will be only one future, > Not for "you" in a world with duplicating machines. > even if there both in the 3p view. > How could they not be in the 3p? > > the question asked was on the future 1p as seen by the 1p, > Philosophically I don't see how it matters but if you want to know if the question was answered correctly there is only one way to go about it 1) Waite for the future to arrive. 2) Find "the future 1p" men, that means finding anybody who remembers being the Helsinki Man. 3) Ask them what city they are now experiencing. A future 1p man will answer Washington AND a future 1p man will answer Moscow. If the Helsinki Man got the prediction right then fine, but if he didn't then who cares; regardless of the veracity of the prediction the important thing is that the Moscow man will still correctly believe he is the Helsinki Man and the Washington Man will still correctly believe he is the Helsinki Man > and *both* are right that they are in one city, > Yes. > so that the 1p views becomes non symmetrical. > Yes. > The duplication has break the symmetry. > Yes, and that is why in a world with duplicating chambers things would seem odd to us, we have become very accustomed to that symmetry so, although not paradoxical, it would definitely take some getting used to being without it. In fact some of us have become so accustomed to that symmetry that even though they know intellectually it has been broken and now things are profoundly different they just can't stop themselves from talking about "the" future 1p view and continue to use personal pronouns in exactly in the same way they always have as if nothing has been broken. >>>> 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. > Well you tell me, what is the chance that the one that sees Washington is the Washington Man and the Washington Man is the one who sees Washington? I'd say that the chance of that happening must be pretty high, pretty damn high indeed! What more do you want to know about it? What more is there to know? >> And as John Clark has said over and over, if something seems identical >> in the 3p view >> > > > Ambiguous. > Which word didn't you understand? >> it is certainly identical in the 1p view, although the reverse is not >> necessarily true. >> > > > Sure. > Thank you. >> Bruno Marchal does not understand the question asked >> > > > I am the one asking the question, so that remark makes not much sense. That's OK, Bruno Marchal wouldn't be the first one to ask a nonsensical question. 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 email@example.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.