On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> you have agreed that all "bruno marchal" are the original one (a case
> where Leibniz identity rule fails,

If you're talking about Leibniz Identity of indiscernibles it most
certainly has NOT failed. If the original and the copy are identical then
exchanging there position will not make a observable difference to a
outside observer nor to the original nor to the copy. So Leibniz would
conclude that if objectively it makes no difference and subjectively it
makes no difference then exchanging the position of the original and the
copy just plain makes no difference.

> If in Helsinki [he] predicted {W & M} [blah blah]

SEE!  Bruno Marchal is incapable of expressing ideas without pronouns with
no referent. Was "he" making a prediction about
the future of Bruno Marchal or about the future of Bruno Marchal the
Helsinki Man? If it's about Bruno Marchal then the correct prediction would
be Helsinki Moscow and Washington, if it's about Bruno Marchal the Helsinki
Man the correct prediction can only be Helsinki. But who cares about

> > the "bruno marchal" in W will see that his prediction failed, as [he]
> must admit that [he] is not seeing M.

But "he" must admit "he" is NOT the only Bruno Marchal because "he" HAS
BEEN DUPLICATED!  Bruno Marchal admits that "he" has been duplicated but
still insists on referring to "he" as if there were still only one, and
that's what makes the whole thing incoherent. And what on earth does a
prediction, correct or incorrect, have to do with a feeling of self

  >>> 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.
> > The question is "what do [you] expect to live or feel, as a comp
> believer"

SEE!  Bruno Marchal just can't stop using those damn pronouns.

> More precisely, it concerns the seeing of the cities involved: do [you]
> expect W, M, both, etc.

SEE!  Bruno Marchal just can't stop using those damn pronouns.

> > The question is used in the traditional sense of "you", before the
> duplication.

And that is exactly the problem, traditionally duplicating chambers do not
exist so the poor little pronoun "you" doesn't have to worry about the
complications such machines generate, but to really study this issue and
move into the big leagues Bruno Marchal must worry about them.

> The guy reason in comp, and knows already many things: that he will
> survive (you have agreed on that), that he will not feel the split

OK, so far so good the use of "he" is  causing no problems.

> that he will see only city


  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