Hi Quentin >>They don't pose problem in this experiment and in the question asked. So I'll >>try one last time, and will try à la Jesse, with simple yes/no questions and >>explanation from your part.
So I will first describe the setup and will suppose for the argument that what we will do (duplicating you) is possible. Quentin, that pronouns pose problems in the thoughtexperiment is clearly illustrated by your need to distinguish between 'you' and '*you*'. >> So you (John Clark reading this email or the one from tomorrow or whatever, >> so I'll use *you*) are in front of a button that is in a room with two >> doors. When *you* will press the button, *you* will be duplicated (by >> destroying you in the room and recreating you two times in two exactly >> identical room), Can you clarify. you say that when '*you*' is duplicated, 'you' is destroyed and 'you' is recreated two times. Is 'you' who gets destroyed and recreated '*you*' who presses the button? or someone different? Afterall, you explicitly introduced the distinction to make things clear, so Im not sure if you just made a typo. if not where did 'you' come from? I feel like huge violence is being done to the pronoun "you" here. I say "you" so that you can distinguish between you, 'you' and '*you*'. All are now in play. when I say "you" rather than 'you' or '*you*' I will be meaning you. >> the only difference in each room is that one has the left door open and one >> has the right door open... what do *you* expect to see when you'll press the >> button ? I thought '*you*' presses the button, but here you say : ' when you'll press the button' Did '*you*' or 'you' press the button? ie. did you mean 'when *you*'ll press the button'? look at this bit: >>1- Do you expect to see the left and the right doors opened ? Yes/No >>2- Do you expect to see the left or the right doors opened ? Yes/No >>If you answer 'Yes' at the 1st question, do you really mean *you* expect to >>see both event simultaneously ? In the questions 1 and 2 you are talking about what 'you' expect to see, but then in the follow on question you ask about what '*you*' expect to see. Are you asking about 'you', 'you' or '*you*' or all three? It seems to me that 'you' can expect to see one room or the other, and 'you' (the other 'you', there being two 'you' and one '*you*') can expect to see one room or the other, and '*you*' can expect to see both if 'you','you' and '*you*' bear the identity relation that is stipulated by the yes doctor assumption, you see? Note that in predicting to see both, '*you*' is not predicting 'you' or 'you' will see both. The result of the probability calculus ... actually, lets not call it calculus because its just a way of bigging up what infact is very little ... the result of the probability sum that '*you*' conducts is different from the result of the sum 'you' and 'you' conduct, because '*you*' is going to be duplicated but neither 'you' nor 'you' are. '*you*' has to bear in mind that both 'you' and 'you' are '*you*' in some sense. 'you' and 'you' don't need to worry about that. And infact to get any other result than zero from the sum, this identity relation between '*you*', 'you' and 'you' must stand, which brings us to another point: as Clark points out, preservation of identity is central to this thought experiment. The other point that Clark often makes is that step 3 is worthless, and if the intention of step 3 is to hammer home that duplicated people would only ever have a single POV, then step 3 is indeed worthless. Does Bruno really need to advertise an inability to conduct simple probability sums to convince you that individuals only have a single pov? But I don't think that is all step 3 is really about. Its also about trying to maintain 'indeterminacy' in the mistaken belief that it has a legitimate place in Everettian MWI. All the best Chris. From: [email protected] Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:53:46 +0100 Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) To: [email protected] 2014-02-19 19:36 GMT+01:00 John Clark <[email protected]>: On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote: > Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding the > argument that you can't meet your doppelganger, So you want me to defend my case but specifically ask me not to use logic in doing so. No can do. That's not what I was asking, I was asking that if you use your meet doppelganger argument, ==> read the next quote. > or you have to explain why the possibility of meeting render probability > calculus meaningless. If Everett's probability calculus produced figures that didn't agree with both experiment and Quantum Mechanics then the MWI would indeed be meaningless because the entire point of the MWI is to explain why Quantum Mechanics works as well as it does. The thing is to devise a though experiment matching MWI, in the MWI case you accept probability calculus. But Bruno isn't trying to explain why Quantum Mechanics works, that's already been done, he's trying to explain the nature of self, He does not, and certainly does not at step 3. and so I don't care if Bruno's probability calculus works He does, that's what is showing FPI (which *of course* also exists under MWI) or not because probability and prediction have nothing to do with that; It has all to do with that because it is specifically the question asked. as I have said before, you feel like Quentin Anciaux today because you remember being Quentin Anciaux yesterday and for no other reason. As I have said before and before and before, that's not the question. And despite what you say above the situations are not equivalent. They are from the probability POV. According to Everett the very laws of physics forbid you from ever interacting with your doppelganger And what does it have to do with frequency and probability ? and so Bruno's favorite type of words, personal pronouns, cause no problem; They don't pose problem in this experiment and in the question asked. So I'll try one last time, and will try à la Jesse, with simple yes/no questions and explanation from your part. So I will first describe the setup and will suppose for the argument that what we will do (duplicating you) is possible. So you (John Clark reading this email or the one from tomorrow or whatever, so I'll use *you*) are in front of a button that is in a room with two doors. When *you* will press the button, *you* will be duplicated (by destroying you in the room and recreating you two times in two exactly identical room), the only difference in each room is that one has the left door open and one has the right door open... what do *you* expect to see when you'll press the button ? 1- Do you expect to see the left and the right doors opened ? Yes/No 2- Do you expect to see the left or the right doors opened ? Yes/No If you answer 'Yes' at the 1st question, do you really mean *you* expect to see both event simultaneously ? If you answer 'Yes' at the 2nd question, do you think you can put a probability to see the left door opened (or reversely the right door) ? Yes/No If you answer 'No', why can't you assign a probability to see each door ? As I see it, there are 2 possible events, so each as a 0.5 probability of occurence... If not why not ? Why in the MWI case, you accept the 0.5 probability ? If you follow strictly the protocol, MWI and this experiment are equivalent, and are not about your personal identity... If you answer both No to the 1st and 2nd question, please develop what you will expect to see when you press the button ? Quentin but in Bruno's thought experiment you can interact with your doppelganger and that turns personal pronouns, which work fine in our everyday world without duplicating chambers, into a chaotic mass of ASCII characters with no clear meaning. > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain I loved Blade Runner too, one of the few things we can agree on. 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 [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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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. -- 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.
