On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >
> > > You know in Helsinki with certainty (accepting comp But I do not accept “comp”. > > I don't see any problem. Just play with words. Logic is playing with symbols according to certain rules, and words are symbols. > >>is that it is never specified who is making this all important "1p and >> 3p distinction". > > > The guy in Helsinki when trying to evaluate what to expect from the > experiential view. And how many experiential views will the guy in Helsinki have after duplication? Two. But of course ICT3PAT1P. > > We have already agreed that both the W-guy and the M-guy are the > Helsinki man. Then what the hell are we arguing about?! > >> The problem is that there is no such thing as "*THE* 1p", there is only >> "*A* 1p". > > > There is the 1p of the W-guy, and the 1p of the M-guy Yes, and you just said BOTH the W-guy AND the M-guy are the H-guy. > > and as first person experience they are incoptaible. Incompatible from each other but NOT incompatible from the Helsinki Man, > >>> Who will *experience* two-cities? > > >> > > The Helsinki Man. > > Nobody ever experience "two cities” Then “The Helsinki Man” doesn’t mean what you just said it means. So what does it mean now? > > It is not a Leibnizian identity Well duh! If a Leibnizian identity is a requirement for survival they you will not survive the next 5 seconds. > > as we have also agreed that after the duplication, the Helsinki man has > two incompatible continuations Incompatible with each other but not incompatible with the Helsinki Man, and it’s the Helsinki Man you were asking about. But yeah yeah I know, ICT3PAT1P. > > We do agree on the notion of personal identity. Apparently not. So I repeat my question, if Bruno Marchal doesn't mean someone who remembers being Bruno Marchal yesterday then who the hell are you? > > I am the guy who has BM's private memory. And the Moscow Man has the Helsinki Man’s private memories and the Washington Man has the Helsinki Man’s private memories. So why aren't they The Helsinki MEN? Oh yes, because ICT3PAT1P . > being duplicated would not change that. I agree. There is absolutely no law of physics that forbids more than one guy having that private memory, the only reason that sort of thing is not common is due to technological limitations > > It would just bifurcate my future and introduce an indeterminacy on > which future I will live. The use of ambiguous personal pronouns comes so easily that Bruno doesn't even seem to realize that Bruno is using them; it's like breathing, thought is required for neither activity. > > You are the one introducing again and again the same ambiguity by > confusing the 3p views and the 1p views. Yeah yeah I know, I Confuse The 3P And The 1P, but I keep telling you it will save time if you use the acronym ICT3PAT1P. And we all know you love acronyms >> >> > >> He means the guy who has been in Helsinki and has the corresponding >> memory, > > > > > > And there are TWO people who have that memory, > > > Yes, that is why there is an indeterminacy. The Helsinki Man means having that memory and we agree that TWO people who have that memory, so The Helsinki Man is two people, so the Helsinki Man sees both cities. I see no indeterminacy in that, everything is specified, but yeah yeah I know, ICT3PAT1P. > >>those TWO people live in different cities, and if we accept your >> definition of "he" then it doesn't take a Kurt Godel to form the logical >> conclusion that "he" will see TWO cities. > > > In the 3-1 view, but "he" will never see "two cities” Then “he” doesn’t mean what you just said it does, “he” can’t mean somebody who remembers being the Helsinki Man. The question asked back in Helsinki was what cities will "he" see tomorrow, so if asked yesterday back in Helsinki what "he" meant what would be the correct answer? On second thought never mind, don't bother answering I already know what you will say, you will start babbling about "*THE* 1p" even though after duplication there is no such thing as "*THE* 1p" there is only "*A* 1p"; but of course ICT3PAT1P. > >There is no atoms of ambiguity, as I specify the type of view on which > the expectations are evaluated. Big talk, so I repeat my challenge that you refused to accept last time, run through the entire duplicating procedure from start to finish WITHOUT using ambiguous personal pronouns and WITH the correct usage of the words “the” and “a”. I’m betting you can't do it without tripping over your own logic. > >>how many cities did the Helsinki man see? > > > > Two in the third description of the 1-views of the survivors. One, in > each first person view of each experiencers. And now the Helsinki Man now has TWO experiencers because the Helsinki Man has been duplicated. Pop Quiz: How much is 1+1? > > of course they are now different person Yes. > > and both the W and the M man see only once city. Yes. > > So you agree that P(W or M) = 1 My agreement depends on if that is a exclusive OR. > > and P(W & M) = 0 Of course I don't agree! > > as P(W) = P(M) I agree because 1=1. > > we get P(M) = P(W) = 1/2. Bullshit. > > Move to step 4, please. Fix step 3 please. 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.
