On 03 Jul 2014, at 21:51, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>> 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.
Fine, then currently nobody is seeing Helsinki.
Sure, after the duplication. But the H-guy has not vanished. By comp
he is in both W and M, although that for his (many now) points of
view, he is in one city.
>> in which case the H-guy will see absolutely nothing.
> Then the H-person dies already at step 1 and 0.
It's just a matter of arbitrary definitions.
But once chosen, we have to stick on the one chosen. Arbitrariness is
not a problem, if we stay coherent in the reasoning.
Is the H-person the guy currently seeing Helsinki or is he not?
Why adding "currently"? We have already agreed that the Helsinki guy
is the guy who is in Helsinki at the beginning of the experience, and
we ask him to predict what he expect to see when later he will be
pushing on the button and open the door.
Then the Helsinki guy is in both cities, he multiplies. But not from
his first person point of view where he is always entire and unique in
inly once city, each time he does that experiment.
If he is and nobody is currently seeing Helsinki then the Helsinki
Man no longer exists
You are changing the definition. By comp we agree that someone survive
with an artficial guy, even if the original guy has vanished. The H-
guy survives, indeed, in both W and M. But only in once of them, from
each copies points of view.
and the correct prediction of what the Helsinki man would see would
be oblivion. However if the Helsinki man is anybody who remembers
being the Helsinki Man
Yes, that was the definition on which we agreed and is forced by comp.
(a more useful definition in my opinion)
In mine too. Since 40 years, and used all along UDA and AUDA.
then BOTH the Moscow Man and the Washington Man are the Helsinki Man
Right.
and therefore the correct prediction about what the Helsinki Man
would see would have been Moscow AND Washington.
Right for the 3p description of the outcome. But that is not what the
question was about. It was about which city you actually see when
opening the door.
As in Helsinki you know that in the 3p you will be both, but that in
BOTH city, you will feel seeing only once city, you know in advance
that you will see only one city, and that predicting it makes no
sense, as it will be refuted by one copy on two in all cases.
So here again, you don't answer to the question asked. You never do
the thought experience. Once you are duplicated, you go out of your
body, and see the two reconstitutions, and never put your shoes in any
of them, when you have to do that for all of them, or at least some
honest sample of them.
You have come back to your favorite error. The 1-3 confusion about the
question asked.
> Incidentally, this contradicts the fact that you have already
agreed that both the W-person and the M-person are genuinely the H-
person.
As I say it all depends on what definition "H-person" has.
The one you like above, which I have always used.
> You assume comp
I don't assume it, I can't assume what I don't understand and your
little homemade term "comp" is nonstandard and is used on this list
and nowhere else.
That is not an argument. I use comp in the sense of computationalism,
and you have to find a flaw in the reasoning to criticize it, but you
just stuck yourself in a deny about the difference between 1p and 3p
in the question asked.
You deny that if the H-guy, still in hlesinki, predict "W and M", it
is refuted in both W and M, given that they will write each W (and not
M), or M (and not W).
Like Kim said, 8th grade understand that. I discovered that about at
that age. I have have never had any problem to explain this to
reasonable people.
But the time someone not completely stupid like you might explain the
time needed for the mainstream to accept this. I don't insist, I have
never submitted a publication. Just accepting command when people
insist. On this list, I just have fun to chat with friends interested
in the fundamental question and everything.
I know what "computationalism" means but "comp" remains as big a
mystery as all those vague personal pronouns, shifting definitions
and peepee floating around.
Then ask precise question about anything unclear. Except possible new
bees no one has any problem with any this. Step 7 and step 8 are a bit
more subtle.
Calling the 1p-3p difference peepee will not help you and provides
only information on your state of mind and attitude here.
Bruno
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 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.
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.
