# Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

```
On 03 Oct 2013, at 17:51, John Clark wrote:```
```
```
```On Wed, Oct 2, 2013  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

```
>> The origin of the indeterminacies is the random use of personal pronouns with no clear referents by Bruno Marchal such that all questions like "what is the probability "I" will do this or that?" become meaningless.
```
> ?

Which word didn't you understand?
```
```
```
I understand all words. It is the statement which seems ad hoc. There is no use of random pronoun, the referents are clear, and the probabilities are not concerned with anything the candidate will do, but with what he will feel to observe.
```
I get the feeling that you are just doing rethorical tricks.

```
```
```
> We need no more "personal identity" notion than we need to say I will survive with an artficial brain
```
```
The origin of the indeterminacies is the random use of personal pronouns with no clear referents by Bruno Marchal such that all questions like "what is the probability "I" will do this or that?" become meaningless.
```

Same remark.

```
Bruno Marchal is simply addicted to personal pronouns because it would be obvious to all that Bruno Marchal's ideas are held together with only spit and scotch tape without the logically inconsistent use of them.
```
```
Read AUDA, where you can find the mathematical definition for each pronouns, based on Kleene's recursion theorem (using the Dx = "xx" trick, which I promised to do in term of numbers, phi_i, W_i, etc. but 99,999% will find the use of them in UDA enough clear for the reasoning. Yet, I have made AUDA as I was told some scientists were allergic to thought experiments, and indeed studied only AUDA (and got no problem with it).
```
```
It obviously leads to a sequence of open problems in logic. The first one has been solved by Eric Vandebussche.
```
```
AUDA, the arithmetic version of UDA, does not need UDA. The fact that you ignore that makes me suspect of you honesty in the game.
```

```
```
> You try to evade the indeterminacy by making it into an ambiguity,

Personal pronouns with no referent
```
```
```
You never made any assertion explicit. Quote a passage of me with a personal pronoun without referent.
```

```
```are the cause of the ambiguity,
```
```

There is no ambiguity. Nowhere. Except apparently in your mind.
```
I think you renamed "indeterminacy", into ambiguity, because it serves your purpose of denying the 1p-indeterminacy.
```

```
and although it results in clunky prose John Clark can explain John Clark's ideas without using them, Bruno Marchal can not explain Bruno Marchal's ideas without the liberal use of such pronouns.
```
```
>> All that can be said is that from ANY point of view there is a 100% chance the Helsinki man will turn into the Washington man, and a 100% chance the Helsinki man will turn into the Moscow man; so if "I" is the Helsinki man then there is a 0% chance "I" will see either city because very soon "I" will turn into something that is not "I".
```
> That contradicts many posts you sent.

BULLSHIT!

> In particular, this would mean that duplication entails death,

```
BULLSHIT! As you said yourself "as you said yourself, we need only the fact that those remembering having been the guy in Helsinki"; and in this case both the Washington Man and the Moscow Man remember being the Helsinki Man so the Helsinki Man is not dead. True, the first person point of view of the Helsinki man no longer exists because nobody is in Helsinki anymore, but that is of no more interest than the fact that the first person point of view that Bruno Marchal had yesterday no longer exists. And that is why all this Pov and pee pee stuff is crap.
```
```
OK, but this explains the indeterminacy. If you don't die, and know in advance that you can logically feel only one city, but that you are reconstituted in both city, you know that any program or god predicting where you will feel (you the guy still in Helsinki) will be refuted by necessarily one of the copies, and that's enough to refute it.
```
```
You do understand, but for some unknown reason, you don't want to proceed.
```

```
```

> Uncertainty in Helsinki about which city you

```
You? Bruno Marchal just can't wean Bruno Marchal off the use of personal pronouns even though it causes ambiguity when duplicating chambers are involved;
```
```
I do not see any ambiguity. Which ambiguity? Where. Can you do precise explicit comment?
```

```
John Clark believes the reason for this is because without ambiguity Bruno Marchal's ideas are obvious nonsense.
```
```
An insult is purely suited to make a reasoning invalid. It weaken your point considerably, and demotivated to try to understand what you attempt to communicate.
```
You are just doing *very* bad philosophy, here, I'm afraid.

Bruno

```
People have known since the stone age that people could seldom make good predictions about what people would see next, but good prediction or bad prediction people always felt like the same people.
```
John K Clark

--
```
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
```To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
```
```
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email