Somebody wrote: > On the other hand if pronouns are avoided, so that referents are clear: > "John is in Helsinki. John is duplicated so duplicate Johns appear in > Moscow and Washington. Then John will be uncertain as to which city John > will find himself in."
No so, in the above case the outcome is perfectly clear and predicable and you just gave the answer yourself. "John is in Helsinki". >Helsinki-John will be uncertain as to which city Moscow-John will find > himself in. Given that the very definition of "Moscow-John" is the John that finds himself in Moscow I think it may be safe to say that "Moscow-John" will be in city of Moscow. But hey, don't blame me if this isn't very deep, it's Bruno's thought experiment not mine. > No amount of additional information will remove the subjective > uncertainty of Helsinki-John about his future. I can provide the needed information right now right here, the Helsinki-John will see Helsinki the Moscow-John will see Moscow and the Washington-John will see Washington. Anything else I can help you with? John K Clark JKC says this is trivial since subjective uncertainty about the future is commonplace. But it's not trivial, anymore than Everett's MWI is trivial, because without the duplication of subjects, subjective uncertainty about a deterministic process could always be eliminated by gaining more information. JKC is just picking on the fact that Moscow-John could meet Washington-John to say that this is different that Everett's MWI. But when an argument uses a thought experiment it is always the case that the thought experiment is different from reality in some respect. In this case that difference is irrelevant to the inference from the thought experiment, so there's no reason to object to it. That's why it is a mistake to reject and argument as soon as you find a "flaw" in one step. It is necessary to see that the "flaw" is used in later steps before you can reject the argument. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 3/22/2015 8:55 PM, Kim Jones wrote: > > But Bruno is only explicating how there can be an objectively determinsitic process that *necessarily* produces a subjectively uncertain outcome. > > > > Yes. Clark has to accept the necessary nature of FPI to be in aosition to go on. Understanding step 3 entails understanding that the FPI is purest indeterminacy at the heart of a deterministic universe. He never will. That's where he's scared. It's too much for him to suppose that some things are truly random. > > > But he does admit that; he even asserts it. And he also says he thinks MWI is right. > > Brent > > -- > 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. -- 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.
