On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against step 3? Then I invite you to attempt to explain it to us.
I think I understand it. Asking the question "which will you be" in the MW experiment is ambiguous because "you" is duplicated. One can quite reasonably say that neither the M-man or the W-man is the H-man, the H-man has been destroyed. This is exactly the position taken by a professor of philosophy I happen to know. This makes the probability questions trivial: What is the probability the M-man sees Moscow? It's 1. The difference between John and me is that I accepted the thought experiment as a model of Everett's wave function splitting in order to see where it would lead.
Brent -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
