On 09 Jul 2014, at 18:19, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>> Obviously if duplication is possible then singular pronouns
become plural ones in the process.
>> Yes, and yet Bruno still demands to know what one and only one
city *you* will see. And things are not made clear if Bruno adds "
from *the* 1P " as if there were only one.
> Quentin is right. You lie.
I always insist that they are two 1p after the duplication.
Then why does Bruno Marchal keep demanding to know what one and only
one city *you* (which one?) will see from *the* (unique) 1p?
Because, as I assume comp, I know that I will survive not matter what,
in the usual clinical sense, and this in only once city from my future
perspective whatever it is.
I know it would be foolish to predict Washington, as I know that "me"
in Moscow will disagree, and it is foolish to predict Moscow, as "me"
in Washington will disagree.
I will push on the button, and I know I will not find myself in both
city. Only in one from my future first person perspective, with
probability one, as this "unique city seeing" will happens with
certainty in all the cities I (in the 3p sense) will get.
If there are two (and there are) why didn't Bruno Marchal ask what
cities John Clark will see from *a* 1p?
That is the 3p view *on* the future 1-views. The answer will be "W and
M". But that is specifically not what is asked to the guy in Helsinki.
He is questioned about what he expects from his future experience, as
he knows that he will not die, just push a button, open a door and see
one city.
And since there are clearly two and thus the referent to personal
pronouns is ambiguous,
No, it is not. It is just thet in this case the future of the unique
first person in Helsinki splits in two, and thus is indeterminate from
its first person point of view. Quite similarly than an observer
looking at a particle in the 1/(sqrt(2))(up + down) state, in the base
{up, down}.
why does Bruno Marchal continue to use them despite numerous
requests to stop?
Imagine, the iterated duplication. The FPI is only the simple obvious
fact that if I interview a sample of copies, the vast majority will
confess not finding any prediction algorithm for what they are tryly
experiencing: a random sequence of W and M. This plays a crucial role
in understanding why we have to extend the Everett embedding of the
physicists in the quantum universal wave to the embedding of the
mathematicians in the arithmetical reality (like somehow Gödel begun).
>> after reading Bruno's last few posts John Clark is no longer even
sure what Bruno means by "The Helsinki Man".
> What we have agree on, but you often change the definition,
arguing it is arbitrary. Once we make the decision, you have to
stick on it, even if the initial decision was arbitrary.
Fine, so lets get our terms straight. Is "The Helsinki Man" someone
who remembers being a man in Helsinki or is "The Helsinki Man"
someone who is currently experiencing Helsinki?
I can work with either definition, they are after all arbitrary, but
as Bruno Marchal says whatever is decided it is necessary to stick
with it.
I stick with that definition since step one. It is made clear as we
agree that a man using classical teleportation survive, and thus
remains the same guy in the same sense that you remain the same guy
after a night sleep or after a cup of coffee.
Of course it happens also that the Helsinki guy is not just the man
who will remember that he was in Helsinki. At some moment, when we
ask the prediction, he* is* in Helsinki. But he will soon find itself
in some other city. In both of them in the 3p view, but in only one of
them in the 1p view. Look at the ciontext, as sometimes "Helsinki man"
refers actually to the moment where the giuy is in Helsinki, but all
along we accept that he will survive, indeed in both cities (in the 3-
view), and in only one of them, in each 1-view, which we take all into
consideration.
To see if the prediction, in the one shot experience, was successful,
we have to see the content of BOTH diaries in W and in M. and with the
definition given of W and M (the first person experience of which city
you feel to be in), it is easy to see that "W or M" was the best. "W
and M" the worst. and "W" and "M" are only partially correct/false.
Similarly for the n shot experiences, if n is big, the best prediction
is "white noise".
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 [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/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 [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/d/optout.
