# Re: For John Clark

```
On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:46, John Clark wrote:```
```
```
```

```
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
```

```
```
So "you" sees both Moscow AND Washington.
```
```
No, anyone of the two see only one city.

So what is the one and only one city that the 2 you see.
```
```

```
W for tham in W. And M for the guy in M. The point is that both of them refute the "W and M" prediction, and confirms the P = 1/2 prediction.
```

```
```

> "you" are both of them,

Yes,

but both see only one city.

```
Yes, and if both are "you" and both see a different city the obviously "you" see both cities.
```

```
In the third person view of what you see. But after the duplication, you have only access to one view, and so "W and M" is refuted. But "w or M" is not refute, and is confirmed. Just look at all diaries.
```

```
```

> You persist in forgetting the distinction between the 3-1 view,

```
And you persist if forgetting that unless Solipsism turns out to be true EVERYBODY has "the 1 view" so just mindlessly chanting "the 1 view" means nothing unless specified who's "the 1 view"
```
Of the guy in Helsinki.

```
```

```
A different diary?? Both the Washington Man and the Helsinki Man remember writing the exact same identical diary and the last line says " I Quentin Anciaux in Helsinki am now walking into the duplication chamber, and now I see the operator starting to push the on butto....".
```So it's true that "you" wrote the diary, but which one is "you"?

Both.

```
Yes. Bruno, you're a expert on logic so given the above tell me, how many cities did "you" see? And please don't start blabing about "the 1-view" unless it's clear who's 1-view.
```
```
It is clear for the resulting person. The one in W knows that he is the one in W. Same for the guy in W. And the confirmation or refutation of the prediction is asked to all of them.
```

```
```

We have agreed on this,

```
We agreed on this when Bruno Marchal said " "you" concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki"; but that didn't last long then "you" sees both cities and you insist "you" doesn't.
```
Because, 1-you never see two cities.

```
So now I don't know what in hell "you" means when Bruno Marchal uses that weasel pronoun.
```
```
You always means all the examplars appearing in the experience. But to grasp the indeterminacy, you need to understand that the question is concerned with the future 1p experience, which the computationalist know will be unique.
```

```
```
```
> John, do you agree that if we promise you to give a cup of coffee in both W and M, you can predict in Helsinki that P("I ill drink coffee) = 1. ?
```
```
Yes. But if we promise "you" to give a cup of coffee to W and a cup of tea to M, and it's predicted in Helsinki that the probability "I" will drink coffee is 1 then after it was all over there would be no way to determine if the prediction was correct or not with Bruno Marchal's inconsistent meanings of pronouns like "I" and "you". If we keep the old very good and clear definition, "you" concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki" then it would be easy to tell if the prediction was correct or not, but Bruno Marchal must backpedal away from that or all the other ideas will fall apart.
```
```
What you call backpedaling is only that we take the first person into account, of all copies, because "you" are all of them in the 3p sense, but only one of them (each of them) after, in the first person pov.
```

```
```
> You seem to ignore that the first person events

Who's first person events? And please, no pronouns.
```
```
The one unique, first person view of all copies.

```
```
> "seeing W" and "seeing M" are incompatible.

Explain why that is incompatible.
```
```
```
because all the 1-you, after the duplication cannot see both city at once. They all see one city, and they could not have any certainty of which one. The guy in W can be very well perturbed, asking himself "why am I the guy in W?". he will not find any reason, as any reason would be infirmed for the M guy, and we have admitted the two copies are the helsinki person, in the 3p description.
```

```
Although I can't prove solipsism is wrong I believe lots of people see W and lots of people see M. And they see it from their first person view.
```
You make my point.

```
```
> At no moment will one person ever say "I see both city"

Yes. Explain why that is incompatible with "you will see both cities".
```
```
```
"you will see both cities" is correct in the 3p description of yourself, and incorrect for the 1p experience of each of them.
```

```
```
```
> unless they talk about the first person view in a third person description,
```
I have no idea what that even means.
```
```
```
It means looking at the experience from outside, where you see your body and behavior, and 1p views, reinstanciated in both city.
```
```
That is different from what is written in all diaries, which contains the statement "I see only one city, and I could not have predicted which one".
```
```
You continue to avoid the fact that the question concerns your future and unique 1-view.
```
You have already seen the point, so please go to step 4.

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.
```
```
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