John, I add a comment to my preview post.
On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:
Then "the 1p" is of no use to anyone and neither is "the 3-1 view"
whatever the hell that is supposed to be.
It is a bit unfair, as I introduced that "3-1" notation exactly to
reply to your first attempt of refutation.
But I will explain, may be for the benefits of others, the 3-1 view.
Tell me what you don't understand in the following.
We are at step 3, that is in Helsinki. I am there with you, and you
will undergo the duplication. That is, you will be read, that is
scanned, then annihilated, and "pasted" in W and M.
Then you might both come back to Helsinki, and we can reiterate the
experience.
By definition, here, actually at the start of the UDA, the 1p
statements are the content written in the diary that the experiencer
take with her/him.
So, of course, as you have often mentioned yourself, you are
duplicated, and this means obviously that the 1p diary, contrarily to
the 3p diary, is duplicated itself.
The 3-1 view is the 3p view on the 1p views, note the plural, after
the duplication. A typical observation will be "the diary of the guy
in W assess that he is in W, and (perhaps) that he could not have
predicted that, and that the diary of the guy in M assess that he is
in M and (perhaps) that he could not have predicted that".
A "3-1" view is just a description made by the observer of the
experience, the one who does not enter in the box, of the experiences,
and the evolution of the contents in the multiplying diaries.
The 1-view are unique, and remains unique *from* each of their points
of 1p-view, as in all duplications, the guy is forced to write either
W *or* M, after self-localizing himself after the localization. It is
the comp equivalent of Everett's observer inability to feel the split.
So the prediction you have often made, and never clearly retracted,
that you will find yourself in W and M, is a correct prediction for
the 3-1 view, but that is not what is asked in Helsinki, which
concerns the 1-views, or as I said the 1-1-views (the 1-view on the 1-
view).
Then again, you can consult only the math part. The 3p view is
axiomatized by the modal logic G, the 1-views are axiomatized by
S4Grz. For example, the fact that the 1-views are equivalent with the
1-1 views can be expressed by the fact that S4Grz proves [°]p <-> [°]
[°]p (with [°]p defined by []p & p, p arithmetical, and "[]" =
Gödel's beweisbar).
There the 3-1 view can be handled in the bimodal logic of G and S4Grz,
which is easily simulated by G, so you can handle mixture of the
points of view, like for example, the 3-view: [][°]p.
But content of diary entering or not into duplication boxes is usually
easier to understand than bimodal self-referential logic.
Hope this helps.
Bruno
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.
