On 12 Jul 2015, at 19:43, John Clark wrote:
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”.
You do accept comp by definition of comp. You might believe there is a
flaw in comp => "reversal", but that is another point. You have failed
up to now to find a flaw. See the preceding posts.
> I don't see any problem. Just play with words.
Logic is playing with symbols according to certain rules, and words
are symbols.
Words are usually not symbols, but sequence of symbols, having or not
some interpretation.
>>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?!
On the fact, to make it straight, that once your 3-you (3-he, 3-Hoàhn-
Clark) are in two cities at once, your 1-you (1-he, 1-John Clark) are
and can aonly be in only one city from their points of view, on which
bear the step 3 question.
>> 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.
Yes, but after the split, they *FEEL* to be only one of them.
> and as first person experience they are incoptaible.
Incompatible from each other but NOT incompatible from the Helsinki
Man,
That is not true, unless the Helsinki man believes that he will die in
the process, but then he has to think that he dies already at step 0
and 1, and 2.
>>> 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?
Not at all. The Helsinki man is in the two cities, but from his first
person view, he feels only to be in one city, and he knew that in
advance.
> 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.
So we agree.
> 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,
Incompatoble with every man and woman and machine ... I recall you
that the prediction is on the first person experience as seen by the
first person experience. It is not on the first person experience as
attributed by other people.
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?
We do agree on the the notion ofpersonal identity, but your problem is
that you just avoid the fact that
1) the experiencer will surivive
2- and know in advance that from his first person pov he will be
unique in one city
> 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.
We agreed on that since the start.
So why aren't they The Helsinki MEN? Oh yes, because
ICT3PAT1P.
They are both the Helsinki man, that is why in Helsinki the
experiencer is unable to predict his next PERSONAL first person
experience.
> 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.
Boring useless rhetorical trick only.
The Helsinki Man means having that memory and we agree that TWO
people who have that memory, so The Helsinki Man is two people,
That never occurs from the first person pov, and the question was
about that. There is not an atom of ambiguity. The ambiguity comes
only from the fact that after the soplit, you decide to not read the
person diary.
Your means to avoid the question are becoming very transparent and
repetitive.
so the Helsinki Man sees both cities.
Nobody see two cities. You might say that two Helsinki man see two
cities, but that is not even grammatically correct. Each see one and
only one city.
I see no indeterminacy in that, everything is specified, but yeah
yeah I know, ICT3PAT1P.
If there is no indeterminacy give your prediction (I recall that the
prediction is on the future experience of the experiencer).
>>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.
false. It always mean the guy who remember seeing Helsinki, but after
duplication he (both "he") will see only one city. So P(one city) = 1.
The Helsinki man can be sure of this; whoever he will become, he will
become a guy seeing only one city, and the other, if it is still an
Helsinki man, has become a different person, as you said yourself
recently to Terren.
You fail to hide that you got the point. You behave like a 5 years old
kids who tries to hide his bad faith.
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,
And you have shown to understand it, but just ignoring the question.
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.
Pronouns have nothing to do. Using names is as much ambiguous if you
forget the 1p/3p difference. using the 1p/3p distinction makes all
ambiguities vanishing, be it with names or pronouns.
Then you told us that you read and appreciated "Forever Undecided" by
Smullyan, , so you do have an idea of the translation/elimination of
the pronouns in arithmetic.
>>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?
1, if you mean first person experience. It is not because you have a
doppelganger in another city that you will FEEL to see two cities. You
really talk like the split makes you into two first person at once,
which is true in the "-1 views, but non sensical in the 1p pov.
> 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.
It does not matter at all.
> and P(W & M) = 0
Of course I don't agree!
The guy who wrote "W and M" is refuted trivially by the two copies, as
both write I see only once city.
> 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.
Show a flaw which is not based on abstracting from the 1p and 3p
difference. If you can do that, I agree there is a flaw, but up to now
I see only hand waving and masking the nuances that we have to
introduce to handle such question.
Your ways to avoid the question asked are transparent. I might lose
credit in answering them. Try to find another flaw, because the last
one has been entirely debunked, and everyone on the list do no more
believe in it.
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.
