On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:


> >>> 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.
>

Yes that is indeed the question, and because it wasn't answered the first 4
times it was asked John Clark will ask it yet again: How many first person
experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno
Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now?

>> and if there are more than one which one is Bruno Marchal referring to?
>>
>
> > Locally, only one, although this is debatable.
>

There is only one so if "you" see Moscow "you" can conclude that absolutely
NOBODY observes Washington from their first person experience viewed from
their first person points of view.

> Now, you agree that there is an indeterminacy.
>

It's not the new sort of indeterminacy found in Quantum Mechanics nor the
sort of indeterminacy found by Turing, it's the sort of indeterminacy
caused by a simple lack of information and first discovered by Og the
caveman; if you knew what city you were going to see you'd know what man
you were going to turn into. You don't turn into the Moscow Man and then
see Moscow, you see Moscow and then turn into the Moscow Man.

> So what about step 4?
>

Induction says that because the first 3 steps suck step 4 probably will
suck too; and deduction says that because step 4 is built upon the
foundation of the previous 3 sucky steps then step 4 must suck too.

 John K Clark











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.
>

-- 
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