On 18 Dec 2013, at 18:59, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> You are the one not taking into account the 1p and 3p distinction,
For several years now Bruno Marchal has accused John Clark of that,
but John Clark would maintain that there is not a single person on
the face of the earth who is confused by the difference between the
first person and the third person.
I have already answer this.
> It is clear that you don't take the first person experiences into
account,
"The" not "a" ?? For the third time please say how many first person
experiences exist on planet Earth right now
Locally, 7 billions of humans first person experiences, + the animals.
Globally: an infinity (with either comp or Everett).
But the point is that each feel unique. The question is about such
first person experience, viewed from their first person points of view.
and if there are more than one which one is Bruno Marchal referring
to?
Locally, only one, although this is debatable.
I don't see the relevance, as the point is that from the 1p view, such
experience are always unique.
> The first person indeterminacies are defined in term of what is
written in the diaries.
How do they do that? All the diaries are full of the same personal
pronouns and they all say the same thing, I don't know what I will
see next.
Wow! You *do* progress. This is far better than your "W & M"
prediction. Now you, the Helsinki man, does not know what he will see
next. Do you agree that he might try to quantify this lack of
knowledge? Are you OK with P(M) = P(W) = 1/2?
At least you agree now that P(M) ≠ 1 and P(W) ≠ 1. Whatever precise
way you will use to quantify the indeterminacy is not important. The
next steps ask only for the invariance of that indeterminacy for some
changes in the protocol.
So what about step 4?
> you only seem to confuse the 1p views with some 3-view on possible
1-p views.
For several years now Bruno Marchal has accused John Clark of that,
but John Clark would maintain that there is not a single person on
the face of the earth who is confused by the difference between the
first person and the third person.
> Things get more interesting in step 4 and after.
If step 4 is built on a foundation of gibberish then it can't be
very interesting.
Now, you agree that there is an indeterminacy. You agreed that P("W v
M") = 1. You agree that P(W) and P(M) are different from 1, and that
P(W) + P(M) = 1, and I guess you will agree that P(M) = P(W) (if not,
why?). So P(M) = P(W) = 1/2 is a quite reasonable probability
distribution in that step 3 protocol. OK?
So what about step 4? Would the introduction of a delay of
reconstitution in, say, Moscow, changes this P(M) = P(W) = 1/2 into
something else?
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.
