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.
>> Huh? Uncertainty about what?
> 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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
