On 29 Jun 2014, at 18:33, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> the H-guy cannot be sure about its future 1-view *from the unique
1-view
Unique? That implies that there is one and only one correct answer
to the question of what the Helsinki Man will see, so after the
exparament is over there should be enough information to know what
that one correct answer should have been. So what was it? Would that
that one unique correct prediction have been Washington or Moscow?
Before you flip a coin you don't know if the correct prediction is
heads or tails, but at least after you flip it you know what the
correct prediction would have been; but in your thought exparament
even after all the dust has settled there still isn't one correct
answer. The difference is that although the bodies of the Helsinki
Man is duplicated there is still only one Helsinki Man until one
copy sees something the other doesn't. The Helsinki Man only turns
into the Moscow Man when he sees Moscow and not before; so the only
unique correct prediction is that the Moscow man will be the Man who
sees Moscow. What more could you expect?
>>> predict with certainlty the unique city you will see
>> The city who will see?
> The H-guy.
I predict that the H-guy will see Helsinki, unless you destroy him
immediately after duplication
That is indeed the case in the step 3 protocol.
in which case the H-guy will see absolutely nothing.
Then the H-person dies already at step 1 and 0. So you are showing
that ~(step 3) -> ~(step 0), that is: ~(step 3) implies not-comp, that
is, comp implies step 3. You can move on step 4.
Incidentally, this contradicts the fact that you have already agreed
that both the W-person and the M-person are genuinely the H-person.
You made an effort to do a different error, this time. I appreciate
the effort.
I further predict that Mr. You will see Moscow AND Washington
because MR. YOU HAS BEEN DUPLICATED.
> you forget also the question asked, which is about what you will
live [...]
What who will live?
You, the H-guy, in the first person sense. The question is always
asked to John Clark, before any duplication, when he is in the city of
Helsinki.
You know you will survive in only ONE city from any of your first
person perspective of the continuation. You just cannot be sure of
which one, as any prediction on which precise city you will see will
be contradicted by the other guy in the other city.
> in the 1p sense from the 1p view and not any 3p view on where
those unique 1-view appears.
That's just a tad too much peepee for my taste.
Then I can understand that you will never understand, because that is
exactly what you should focus on.
> You are not answering the question asked.
That's because the question asked is gibberish. You want to know
which one of the 2 will see Moscow, but there is only one not two,
there is no 2 until one sees Moscow and the other does not.
The question is what you expect from your first person experience. W
and M denotes "feeling being at W" (resp. M). The question is not
about the body, nor where your first person experience will be
instantiated, but about which city you will feel to be in when doing
the experience of opening the door after having pushed the device
button in Helsinki.
You assume comp, and so you know that you (the H-guy) will survive,
one and entire, in ONE city from the first person perspective. So (W &
M) is excluded: you know in advance in Helsinki that if you write the
prediction (W & M) in your diary, the inscription (W & M) will be
itself duplicated in both places, as by definition the first person
discourse is the content of the diary that the experiencer take with
him in the scanner-annihilation-duplication machine. But the copy in
Moscow, when opening the door will see only Moscow, and so (M & W) is
refuted. from the first person perspective (on which the question is
all about), "M" has been selected from M and W. He got one bit of
information, and it is the same for the guy in W. One bit of
information has been offered to him, from his first person
perspective, as he will write "W" in his diary, contradicting his
prediction in Helsinki.
The Moscow Man will be the one who sees Moscow, what more do you
want me to say for you to count it as a successful prediction?
The prediction must be successful from the first person perspective of
*all* copies.
"W v M" is an example of always successful prediction (for that
protocol).
"W & M" is always false.
"W" and "M" are correct one have of the time.
In the iterated case, the P(W) is given by the binomial coefficients,
and the gaussian integral for big value of the number of iteration.
OK?
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/d/optout.
