On 2/10/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote: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.But that question is John Clark's invention. I never ask it. The question asked is about your FIRST PERSON expectation about 1-your future. It cannot be ambiguous when we assume comp.Sure it is. What does "your first person expectation" refer to. Does it ask what will your 1-p experience be? Or does it ask what is your 1-p feeling about where you will be?Consider a quantum measurement instead. Do we have an expectation of 1p experience when we check if a photon's been reflected or transmitted? We assign a probability to each outcome, surely? Why is Bruno's duplicator different?
There are two different people you can ask, "How did the experiment come out."
(We seem to have been around in a loop on this about 100 times...)
I agree and I'm willing to take it as hypothetical that it doesn't make a difference, at least till I understand the whole argument. But I suspect that it could. It might require that in step a whole world be created and that I think could make a difference.
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.
