On 03 Nov 2013, at 16:22, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> The prediction, asked in Helsinki, concerned the 1-views,
And John Clark asks "the prediction concerns the first person view
of who?" and Bruno answers "the first person view of you"
No. The Helsinki Guy. He is the one asked to make a prediction, and to
write it in his diary in Helsinki. It is made precise that the
prediction concern where he will fell to be, indeed. But the "you" in
the unique guy in Helsinki.
and John Clark asks "who is you?" and Bruno answers "the guy with
the first person view".
See above. Could comment my answer, and not your own deformation of
them?
And around and around we go. Everybody has a 1P view, so just saying
"from the 1P view" tells me nothing unless I know the 1P view of who.
> the 1-you's experience admits a very simple definition: it is the
story written in the diary that *you take with you, in Helsinki, in
the teleportation box.
And the diary was written by you, no doubt about it, but the trouble
is after the teleportation there is a fellow in Moscow and a fellow
in Washington that are both holding identical diaries that they both
vividly remember having written. So how in hell can I now determine
if a prediction made in Helsinki before anybody stepped into a
teleportation box about what city "you" will see was correct or not?
And just chanting for the 99'th time "you confuse the 1P and the 3P"
will not help on iota in making that determination.
It is very simple. "W and M" is always wrong. W is wrong in half the
case, like M. "W or M" is always confirmed. You have to look at all
the resulting diaries.
All I want is a way to figure out who "you" is so I can figure out
if the prediction about what city "you" will see was correct or not.
Obviously Bruno Marchal's old definition of "you", the one that
actually made sense ("you" concerns the guy(s) who will remember
having been in Helsinki) simply won't do because it would render
vast stretches of Bruno Marchal's theory wrong.
U have not shown that. It works in all cases, once you remind that the
question is about the 1-you. Yes, there are two such 1-you, in the 3-
view, but each feel unique, and knew this in advance.
So what new definition is there
There is no new definition. You make this up. There is only the 1/3
distinction, that you mock without ever using. That explains why you
are stuck. But, you do use it in the MWI, so you are just inconsistent.
that I can use to figure out if predictions concerning "you" turned
out to be true or not?
You have to take all 1-you into account. They are logically exclusive,
and that explains the indeterminacy. See my preceding posts and
comment the answer with quote.
>why am I the one with the experience (described in the diary):
MMWWMWWMWWWWMMMMMM
Why this one?
You are the Moscow man because you are the man who saw Moscow, and
you are the MMWWMWWMWWWWMMMMMM man because you are the man who saw
MMWWMWWMWWWWMMMMMM. And iterating silly questions will not bring
clarity.
So you just evade the question.
Bruno
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.
