On 16 Jul 2015, at 21:48, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> chris peck wrote: There is no contradiction here as Clark
has pointed out with excruciating and what must amount to inhuman
patience over many many years. Neither duplicate would conclude that
P(W & M) was 0 for their mutual ancestor and the fact they only see
one city wouldn't be considered by either of them to be evidence
that he was wrong.
> Only by dismissing the question asked, and confusing the
third person description of the first person experience and their
explicit content.
I said it before I'll say it again, when talking about the future
in a world with people duplicating machines there is no such thing
as "THE" first person experience, there is only "A" first person
experience;
Wordplay. For P("W xor M") you need only to mention "the experience of
seeing one city" (which is implemented in both places), like "the
experience of drinking coffee".
If you don't believe that there is a (unique, well defined) experience
after pushing the button, then you believe that you die already in the
simple (without duplication) teleportation.
Again, you can see this more easily in the iterated cases, where "the"
experience is any one *among* all experiences. All confirms that "the"
was well defined, as they lived it.
It is only the experience that you will live (as you agree you
surivive). It is undetermined, but not ambiguous. This reduces your
present remark to the same 3-1/1-1 confusion.
Well tried.
and specifying that the one who deserves the grand title "THE" is
the one "HE" experiences does not make things one bit less ambiguous.
It means that both experiences (in M and W) deserves to be qualified
as "the" continuing experience, when we handle the 1p experiences
content. As we can 3p verify by looking at the diaries of all copies.
Not that the future, or the lack of one, has anything to do with
present consciousness or the feeling of a unique self.
> you seem to painfully imitate John Clark's persistent
confusion
Bruno, have you ever considered the possibility that maybe just
maybe you are the one who is confused?
Well, give me your prediction, then.
The one you gave up to now has been refuted again and again by all
people on this list, except Chris Peck which reproduces exactly the
same error.
I know hundreds of people who get the step 3. I know only 4 people who
claimed to not get it, but also have never been able to convince
anyone of what is their problem.
So, may be you could ask that question to yourself. Isn't it?
Your bizarre deny of the 1-1/3-1 difference either just establishes
determinacy in the 3p description (which has never been doubted, but
does not answer the question asked) or introduces an ambiguity, which
simply is not there.
Bruno
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.
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.
