On 18 Dec 2013, at 16:32, John Clark wrote:
It's Bruno Marchal not John Clark who throws around personal
pronouns like confetti in philosophical discussions about personal
You are the one not taking into account the 1p and 3p distinction, and
when you do, concludes "trivial", but still refuses to handle the step
If it's always been a hot subject among scientists and philosophers
then regular old indeterminacy must be pretty old, and I see nothing
that is both new and correct about it that you have brought to the
The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us in
answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect.
It is clear that you don't take the first person experiences into
account, as they are related in good samples of the survivors, in
simple relative duplications, or in their iteration.
The first person indeterminacies are defined in term of what is
written in the diaries. It contains the self-localization results, and
it is a combinatorial exercise to show that the vast majority of first
person experience will be highly random (random-incompressible).
If this is trivial, go to step 4.
If not, explain the problem, and, please, without insult, ad hominem
remark, and in a way so that we understand our error. But up to now,
you only seem to confuse the 1p views with some 3-view on possible 1-p
views. Given comp and the definition of 1p and 3p, the FPI is very
simple indeed if not "trivial". Things get more interesting in step 4
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.