On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 5:05 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > > Point? Flaw expressed as a complete idea and not as some partial attack on terms from the hedges? > > >> > Not something like the self-duplication. >> > > What randomness is there in that? > Point? Flaw expressed as a complete idea and not as some partial attack on terms from the hedges? > > > >> > we know in advance that each copies can only see one city, >> >> > Yes. > > >> > 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, because "the guy in Helsinki" is a third person description. The 3rd person pronoun is embedded in your question and you are asking for it to be removed while providing an answer concerning it. Whatever, John... I don't believe that you're seriously asking something this semantically unsound. > 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. > Your last question I responded to, is sufficient to let readers decide on that. It's a fine example of how you play and/or your alien conception of pronouns. > 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. > Why literally and metaphorically baroque hypothetical from the guy that hates philosophy? Not teleporting in Shakespeare's time is responsible for use of pronouns today?! Sorry, but this is worse than bad philosophy. And no philosophers to blame. John Clark produced that statement and is the philosopher he set out to shoot down in this thread. > Thus when talking philosophically about duplicating chambers personal > pronouns must be used sparingly and with great care even if that results in > inelegant prose. > Not so fast... you can also use informal language use ambiguity of interplay between pronouns, entities, and pov to obfuscate your own "bogosity". Bruno's use corresponds to accepted standards in linguistics and, from what I understand, in mathematical logic as well. What does your hyper-complex use of pronouns correspond to? > > >> > 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 never wanted to, despite your intelligence, so cut the pretense. > > > > 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. > Again, you're that philosopher in this discussion, John. Not "clear, deep, non-obvious, and true". So that is consistent: the philosopher that sheds light on nothing but obvious wrongs or redundant trivialities and obfuscations (your 3rd person description of "philosophers" starting this discussion) is first person John Clark making statements here. Again you mix up the 1p and 3p pronouns. Whether deliberate or not, is not the question. You claimed to have found a flaw; but if you keep mixing up these two to your heart's content, and use that as a vector for attacking from hedges with no theory or backup for your use of pronouns, then it is clear why you think you have found a flaw. PGC > > 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. > -- 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.
