On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > if it is about a prediction on 1p events, the specificity is simple: we > have to interview all the copies. >
Then don't just talk to the Moscow Man and say that is enough to disprove the prediction that the Helsinki Man will see Moscow AND Washington because the Moscow Man, the one and only person you talked to, says he didn't see Washington. Not that predictions have any relevance to matters of self identity. > >> I don't give a hoot in hell if the incoherent grab bag of ideas you >> call "comp" is false or not. The word is your invention not mine and you're >> the only one who seems to know exactly what it means. >> > > > You have repeated that sentence an infinity of times. > I've told you a billion times don't exaggerate! > Comp is the quite standard hypothesis [...] > "Comp" is NOBODY'S standard hypothesis, I have never in my life heard a scientist use the word "comp". Not once. And don't tell me that it means Computationalism and you're just too lazy to type the extra letters, if it were just that then after I had complained about it "an infinite" number of times I think you would have stopped being so lazy. I think there is much more to it than that, there must be because I agree with Computationalism but I sure as hell don't agree with "comp". >> you once said something abut "the future 1p" of the Helsinki man, well >> that description would fit 2 people because both remember being the >> Helsinki man. >> > > > yes, and that is why the confirmation is asked to the 2 people. > Exactly, there are 2 people not just 1 who will inhabit "the future 1p" , or more precisely "a future 1p" of the Helsinki Man, so interviewing just one man would not provide enough information to know if the prediction "John Clark will see both Moscow and Washington" was correct or not, but after interviewing both you would know enough to be able to judge the truth or falsehood of the prediction, and in this case you'd know that the prediction was correct. Not that predictions, good or bad, would matter in the slightest, not if you're talking about consciousness and the nature of self identity. So to sum up, did the Washington Man see Moscow? No. Did the Moscow Man see Washington? No. Was the Washington Man once the Helsinki Man? Yes. Was the Moscow Man once the Helsinki Man? Yes. Is the Moscow Man the Washington Man? No. Is the Washington Man the Moscow Man? No. Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes. >> I too have discovered a new sort of indeterminacy that involves math and >> it is very very similar to the sort you discovered; I add 2 to the number 3 >> and I add 8 to the number 3. The number 3 can't predict if it will end up >> as a 5 or as a 11. I believe my discovery is just as profound as yours. Not >> very. >> > > > So you accept that step 3 is a discovery? > I think my "discovery" is virtually identical to yours and is just as profound. Not very. 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.
