Hi Jason Resch 

Could those two people see and talk to one another ?
Could they shake hands ? 
Then their memories of that event would be different.

 
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/26/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Jason Resch 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-25, 09:37:35
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Against Mechanism


Well if two people have the same mind and identity, then might they share the 
same soul (at least for a moment)?


Jason


On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi Jason Resch 
 
Not in my opinion, but that's just my opinion.
The reason being that I am a Leibnizian, and 
to him everybody must be different (have an 
individual monad= soul = identity= memory, 
etc. etc. etc. ). 
 
 
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/25/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
 
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Jason Resch 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-24, 11:13:17
Subject: Re: Re: Against Mechanism





On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi Jason Resch

Since 1p has the property of perspective,
and no two people can be at the same place at the
same time,


But could there be two places that are identical to each other which contain 
the same first person perspectives?


Jason
3p has multiple perspectives.

That is the only multiworld theory that I can
believe in.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Jason Resch
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-22, 14:56:13
Subject: Re: Against Mechanism





On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, John Clark ?rote:


On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal ?rote:



>> 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 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.

--
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.




-- 
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.

-- 
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.



-- 
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.

-- 
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