Before responding to Bruno Marchal's post John Clark would like to say that it's amazing how much sloppy thinking and elementary logical errors can be swept under the rug by the simplest shortest words like "you" and "I"; therefore John Clark requests that when Bruno Marchal rebuts this post Bruno Marchal does not use these personal pronouns. John Clark understands that this can lead to prose that sounds a bit awkward because the English language was never designed for this sort of thing, but making the effort can really clarify ones thinking. And no cheating by talking about THE future 1p as if it were singular and not plural.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> We're talking about multiple (probably infinite) copying and >>>> branching, so who the hell is "you"? >>> >>> >>> >>> All of them are you, >>> >> >>> >> I agree, and so the conclusion is logically inescapable, "you" will >>> see Moscow AND Washington. >> >> > In the 3-1 view. > In any view! The question was "what city will you see ?", to answer that question it is necessary to know what the word "you" means and Bruno Marchal just said "all of them are you" therefore it doesn't take a professional logician to figure out that "you" will see Moscow AND Washington. If Bruno Marchal dislikes that conclusion and wants to say "you will see only one city" then it would be necessary to change the definition of "you" from the guy who remembers being in Helsinki to something else. John Clark can't imagine what that new definition of "you" that would be but is willing to listen. > But, of course, it is obvious that after the duplication, each > reconstitution will feel to be only one of the reconstitutions > That is irrelevant to answering the question "what city will "you" see?" . > > as each of them cannot feel to see both W and M simultaneously, > So what? Suzzy had 2 apples and gave one to Tommy and one to Johnny, so who received an apple from Suzzy? Would you really expect that only one boy's name would be the correct answer to that question? > After the duplication there are two; logically incompatible, 1p > perspectives. > How on earth is that logically incompatible?? In a world with matter duplicating machines the word "you" is PLURAL so it would be expected that there would be more than one 1p perspective. If there was only one 1p perspective THEN there would have been a logical incompatibility. > "I see only W" and "I see only M". > Yes, and that proves that "you" saw W AND M. > > If in Helsinki you predict "I will see both W and M", BOTH > reconstituted persons will have to write "I was wrong: I definitely see > only one city". > If the word "I" is just an abbreviation for "Bruno Marchal" in the above then the replacement could be made and there would be no change to the meaning of the sentence, but instead it takes on an entirely different flavor and there would be absolutely no reason for either the Moscow Man or the Washington Man to say "Bruno Marchal was wrong" or "Bruno Marchal sees only one city". Thus the word "I" must be carrying a lot of hidden assumptions and excess baggage that the word "Bruno Marchal" does not. As John Clark said, in philosophy the shortest words can cause the most confusion because they're so common they're used automatically without thinking. 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.
