On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>> the coin throw was random so you ended up in Moscow rather than
>> Washington for no reason at all, but that's OK because there is no law of
>> logic that demands every event have a cause.
> > The point is that in this case the randomness is know to be due to the
> lack of precision in the data

Exactly, lack of precision in the data. In the Many Worlds interpretation,
and in all the duplicating chamber thought experiments I have see on this
list, probability is not a property of the thing itself but just a measure
of a lack of information.

> > Not something like the self-duplication.

What randomness is there in that?

> > we know in advance that each copies can only see one city,

> > and not both

Yes, Bruno Marchal the Washington Man will not see Moscow, and Bruno
Marchal the Moscow Man will not see Washington, and Bruno Marchal the
Helsinki Man will not see Moscow or Washington; and of course Bruno Marchal
will turn into things (PLURAL because Bruno Marchal has been duplicated)
that see all 3 cities.

> > and so the immediate result of the self-localization cannot be predicted
> by the guy in Helsinki.

Without using personal pronouns please tell John K Clark the precise
question to ask "the guy in Helsinki" that has a indeterminate answer, and
just as important please make clear exactly who Bruno Marchal is asking the
question to.

> > You are playing with words

Words are the only way we have to communicate and I am not playing and this
is not a game. I have no doubt that if duplicating chambers were in common
use in Shakespeare's day by now the English language would be very
different, particularly in regard to personal pronouns; but that didn't
happen so we are left with a very imperfect instrument to discuss these
matters. Thus when talking philosophically about duplicating chambers
personal pronouns must be used sparingly and with great care even if that
results in inelegant prose.

> > I have no clue, and I think that nobody has any clue about what you fail
> to understand.

I no longer think there is anything there to understand.

> You oscillate between "not new and trivial", and "wrong",

Yes, because your statements oscillate between not new, trivial, hopelessly
vague, and just wrong. I said a long time ago that no philosopher in the
last 200 years has said something that was clear, deep, non-obvious, and
true that a scientist or mathematician hadn't said long before, and you are
continuing in that grand tradition.

  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.

Reply via email to