On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> The point is that with the step 3 protocol, you (the H-guy) can never
> predict among {W, M}, if the result will be "I feel being the W-man", or "I
> feel being the M-man".

That's because neither will happen, however I the Helsinki Man can predict
that I the Helsinki Man will see only Helsinki. I the Helsinki Man can also
predict that I the Helsinki Man will turn into the Moscow Man or the
Washington Man,  but is unable to know which because I the Helsinki Man
don't know if the next photon that will enter the eye of I the Helsinki Man
will come from Moscow or Washington. I the Helsinki Man can make a third
prediction, even if the predictions made by I the Helsinki Man turn out to
be wrong (actually they won't be wrong in this instance but it wouldn't
matter if they were) I the Helsinki Man would still feel like I the
Helsinki Man.

>  > If you are OK with this, please proceed.

I'm not OK with this and will not proceed.

>   >> the founders of Quantum Mechanics were saying 2 things that neither
>> Pascal or Boltzman were:
>>  1) Some events have no cause.
> > Only those believing in the collapse

You can say that what the founders of Quantum Mechanics were saying was
wrong if you like, but they were talking about wave collapse.  And the
founders of Quantum Mechanics would also say that arguing over the
difference between a event with no cause and a event with a cause that can
never be detected even in theory is a waste of time.

>  > that Feynman called a collective hallucination.

Hmm, I've heard lots of people say that reality is a collective
hallucination and I know a few Feynman sayings but I never heard him say
that about wave collapse.  When did he say it? What is the entire
quotation? Google can't seem to find anything like that.

> > I do not need more about identity than "your definition". Anyone capable
> of remembering having been X, has the right to be recognized as X.

The problem has never been X calling himself X, that's fine; the problem
comes when you a third party who never remembers being X starts talking
about "X"  to yet another third party in a world that has 2 things in it
that have a equal right to call themselves "X" because duplication chambers
exist. If somebody hides behind pronouns in such a world anything can be

> > So, asking me to not use pronouns, in what is in great part a theory of
> pronouns, is like asking me to square the circle.

Yes, just as John Clark thought. It is theoretically impossible to explain
Bruno Marchal's ideas without using ill defined pronouns to hide behind and
without assuming the very things that Bruno Marchal is attempting to prove.
The only explanation given is I is I and you is you and he is he, but
before Euclid even started his first proof he made crystal clear what all
his terms meant, and Euclid never said a line is a line.

> >> Without using pronouns please explain who the hell Mr. 1 is and then
>> maybe I can answer your questions.
> > Without using pronouns, I lost my job.

John Clark does not think Bruno Marchal knows what a pronoun is.

> > You confuse [blah blah]

There is one thing John Clark is most certainly not confused about, unless
used very very carefully pronouns will cause endless confusion in a world
where duplicating chambers exist.

 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