On 15 Jul 2014, at 16:35, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
Of course there is. You know when in Helsinki, (as a comp believer)
John Clark is NOT a "comp" believer.
This contradicts the fact that you are OK with step 0, and step 1, and
step 2.
> what do you expect about the evolution of your subjective life,
There are now 2 , so which subjective life?
Any one.
> like the one you describe in the personal diary
There are now 2 diaries just as there are now 2 yous.
Yes, in the 3-1 view, but each 1-view has noted only once city, and so
we can know in advance that both we write in the diary: "I see only
once city". And so both conclude that the "W & M" prediction was
false, even if it stay correct in the 3-1 symmetrical view. For both
survivors, that symmetry is 1p broken. The W-guy can asks itself "why
am I the one in W and not in M", and the M-guy can asks himself the
corresponding question. Both got one bit of information, by getting W
*or* M, and not both. And both are genuine descendent of the H-guy,
and knows that H-guy was wrong in denying that life experience of
getting one bit of information.
> Do you expect to die, or to vanish? No. that would contradict step
0.
Why did Bruno Marchal use the personal pronoun "you" in the above
sentence that attempts to explain the nature of personal identity?
You made that annoying move repeatedly. The question is not about
personal identity, but about pushing on a button, opening a door, and
inscribing a result in a diary.
Because otherwise the ideas expressed would be exposed as vacuous.
If it becomes vacuously true, go to step 4.
Bruno Marchal is simply asserting early in the "proof" what Bruno
Marchal is attempting to prove.
That is always the case in deductive argument. We make explicit in the
theorem what is already implicit in the axiom.
But if you are OK, just move to step 4. It might be slightly less
obvious, perhaps.
> Her first person experience is [...]
Which first person experience?
You don't quote enough.
I think you just NOT want to understand.
> You believe in comp
Nobody believes in "comp" because nobody knows what it means,
especially you.
I see. You just play with me. I ridicule myself to discuss with you.
Bruno
> UDA offers simple 3p definition of the 3p and 1p pronouns,
Well good for uda.
> AUDA offers purely arithmetical definition
Well good for auda and uda.
> for the 3p notion, and then take the Theaetetus' definition for
the 1p notion
Well good for Plato even though he was a ignoramus by today's
standards; a hillbilly schoolboy knows more about how the world works.
> the question of prediction is always asked BEFORE we push on the
button
John Clark isn't interested in when the question was asked, and
right now John Clark isn't even interested what the answer is. John
Clark just wants to know exactly and unambiguously what the question
is.
> if in Helsinki you (John Clark, the guy I send this post to,
arriving at Helsinki by plane, etc.) predict I will [...]
Why did Bruno Marchal use the personal pronoun "I" in the above
sentence that attempts to explain the nature of personal identity?
Because otherwise the ideas expressed would be exposed as vacuous.
Bruno Marchal is simply asserting early in the "proof" what Bruno
Marchal is attempting to prove.
> We have agree many times that both copies are genuine older
helsinki man.
Yes indeed that has been agreed to, but then in the next breath
Bruno Marchal will say that according to "comp" even though the
Helsinki Man will certainly see Moscow there is less than a 100%
chance that the Helsinki man will see Moscow. And that is why John
Clark doesn't understand what "the Helsinki Man" means and that is
why even Bruno Marchal doesn't understand what "comp" means.
> from the 1p view, the view are unique, even if there are many 1p
views,
And that is the idea that is simply asserted into the proof, there
is something mysterious that makes one and only one of those views
unique ; so it's little wonder that in later steps it is proven.
John Clark will admit that asserting what is attempted to be proven
does leads to proofs that are simpler and shorter.
> Just ask John Clark to answer the 2^(16180 * 10000) * (60 * 90) *
24 - iterated multiplication experience. What can John Clark, before
pushing the button, expect about the first person experience that
John Clark will live
John Clark will have 2^(16180 * 10000) * (60 * 90) * 24 first
person experiences as viewed from the 1P and NONE OF THEM ARE
UNIQUE, there is no such thing as " *the* first person experience
that John Clark will live". And there is another problem, ALL views
are views of the present, nobody can view the future, guesses can be
made about what things will happen but there is no "future 1P".
> By definition of the "first person", or "experience", the
verification is made by comparing the prediction [blah blah]
And that is perhaps the most serious error of all, the idea the the
sense of self has something to do with the success rate a theory has
at predicting the future.
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.
