On 22 Jun 2015, at 19:01, John Clark wrote:
You just said and I agree that there are "two first-person views",
and both people who have those two different first person views
remember being the Helsinki man; so those talking about "THE" future
first person view of the Helsinki Man as if it were singular are
talking nonsense.
Not at all, they mention THE experience, of each ONE.
You forget that we have to listen to both of them, and both says that
the prediction "only one city" was correct (as it was clear, or
supposed to be clear, that the question was about that, unique
singular experience.
You avoid answering the double coffee modification of step 3 question,
because its answer entails that you must agree that for the guy in
Helsinki, with comp and the defaut hypotheses, the probability of
(seeing only one city among W or M) = Probability(getting a cup of
coffee) = 1.
In Helsinki the person can write in its diary "I will survive and see
both cities, when viewed from a third person point of view, but I will
personally feel, with certainty, to survive in only one city, and I
can't predict which one".
You abstract yourself from the fact that after the experience is
completed, all copies have a personal distinct experience, and they
can understand (if Löbian) that the question was actually about that
(necessary singular) experience.
The FPI is a purely logical impossibility. You can't make a robot
capable, when duplicated, to predict in advance where it will record
to be.
But then we get the "Everett explosion". In arithmetic, aleph_0
computations go through yours state(s) and with aleph_one possible
semantics and random oracular differentiations. At first sight it is a
mess, with noise and white rabbits. It echoes Descartes Malin Genies.
Nobody pretends it is simple, but some dislike making ontological
commitment to solve the problem, because that is not convincing, and
MGA made the point that on this matter, it simply is a God-of-the-gap
use.
You can understand the mathematical problem, before understanding the
philosophical necessity of the problem.
You can even understand the solution, before understanding the problem.
Bruno
As for "ridiculing the terminology" well...., from now on I promise
to give it all the respect it deserves.
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.
