On 22 Jun 2015, at 06:08, Terren Suydam wrote:
Exactly, and we finally get to the point. Since each johnclarkian collection of atoms, after they diverge, would have their own unique first-person point of view, it's trivial to see how this state of affairs is just like Bruno's duplication scenario - after all, in Bruno's experiment both copies diverge immediately as well. So next time Bruno brings up '1p', instead of ridiculing the terminology, just remember back to this thought experiment and substitute the "1p view of Washington man" and "1p view of Moscow man" for the two first-person views held by the johnclarkian collections of atoms, so you can make sense of what he is saying.
Thanks for the try Terren. I suspect that John Clark is not interested in making sense of anything I could say. I guess it is personal, as the hominem tone and insults illustrate. That is why he will not do as you suggest, and he will avoid the 1p/3p distinction where he want to see an ambiguity, which of course he is the one introducing it. He does this systematically since day one.
Bruno 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.
