On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Oh no, now we have the two 3-1 p view >> ! >> > > > > We have this since the beginning. >
That explains your profound confusion. > > > You can say that both copies have the 1-view of the H-guy, > Regardless of how many bodies there are after duplication before the door of the duplicating chamber is opened and they start to experience different things there is only one person so naturally there is only one first person view; after the door is opened there are many persons and a corresponding number of views. > > but none of the copies have the 1-view of the two copies, as you agree > they are incompatible. > Because after the door is opened there is no such thing as "*the* 1-view". >> >> >> your peepee notation really sucks.. Ascribed by >> > >> who? > > > > > By anyone, > By any third party, in other words the third party view. I don't understand the difference between "3p view" and "3-1" view. >> >> If it's the by a third person then the 3-1 view is just the 3 view, > > > > > No, because we cannot see or measure or have any direct access to an > 1-view. > If we had such access there would be no difference between objective and subjective and it would all just be 1-view, but since we can't a different name is required and it's called, in your homemade terminology, "3p view". And I still don't understand the difference between "3p view" and "3-1" view. Do you? > > > So 3-1 means that it is something considered from a non owner of the diary, > In other words the 3 view. > > > which nevertheless is interpreted as an 1-view, > In other words the 3 view. > > > but not necessarily our own. > In other words a non-solipsistic interpretation. And I still don't understand the difference between the 3 view and the 3-1 view. > > 3-1 is when we talk of the 1-view of someone else. > Aka the 3 view. > > Like when we say that the guy survived in both W and M. That is true > That may or may not be true depending on what you mean by "the guy", you change it so often it's difficult to keep track. > > > (assuming comp). > I do not assume "comp". > > > But they all feel to be different from the others > Yes, and that's exactly why there are 7.1 billion 1ps and not just one. > > > So here, you do confuse the 3-1 views and the 1-views, which is a > particular case of 3p/1p confusion. > Don't be ridiculous, nobody on planet Earth is confused by the difference between the first person and the third person, but everybody on planet Earth is confused by the difference between the 3 view and the 3-1 view , and nobody is more confused than Bruno Marchal. > > > "the" is not need in the math part, and makes an easy sense with the > definition of the views based on the diaries > Those damn diaries again! The diaries are useless after the duplication unless the person who wrote them could be unambiguously identified and you can't do that; and even if you could it would only tell you if a prediction turned out to be right or not, it would tell you nothing about the nature of consciousness. > >> Of course I agree that the subjective experience > > bifurcates >> when looking along the timeline in one direction, and it unites when >> looking along the opposite direction. And that is why personal identity >> can only be defined by looking toward the past and not the future. >> > > > > Then how do you justify that someone prepares a cup of coffee, if it is > not because he associates a personal satisfaction to its future self > drinking the coffee. > There is no purely logical reason to make coffee or not to make coffee, but people who enjoy being alive and are good at hypothesizing what the future will be like are more likely to pass more of their genes into the next generation than people who don't enjoy life and aren't good at making plans for the future. So you prepared that coffee because you have some of those genes. >> >> >> Not true the outcome is perfectly predictable. The guy who intercepts a >> photon from Moscow will turn into the guy who experiences Moscow and the guy >> who intercepts a photon from >> Washington >> will turn into the guy who experiences >> Washington. I honestly don't know what more needs to be predicted. >> > > > > The guy in M sees M, sure, and the guy in W sees W. Nobody doubt this: it > is tautological. > I agree it most certainly is, but tautologies are always true, so what's the problem? What remains un-predicted? > > > But the prediction is asked in Helsinki. > Yes, and more important the answer was given in Helsinki too, if the question was asked in Moscow the answer would be different. The Moscow Man did not see Washington, but the Helsinki Man did, The Washington Man did not see Moscow, but the Helsinki Man did. > And ask if you will be that M guy or that W guy. You you and you! Even at this late stage Bruno Marchal just can't stop using that god damn ambiguous personal pronoun! > > > So in the 3-1 view, we don't get any information, but in the 1-views, both > get one bit of information. > Before the duplication John Clark knew that the guy who intercepts photons from Moscow will become the Moscow Man. After the duplication John Clark intercepts photons from Moscow and knows he became the Moscow Man. What new has been learned, what bit of new information has been generated? > > > you are saying that you just dies when pushing the button, > John Clark refuses to say anything more about "you" until Bruno Marchal reveals what "you" means today. It might be helpful to do that in the first line of every new post. > > So the W-guy looks at his path and remember being the H-guy. > *Yes.* The M-guy looks at his path and remember being the H-guy. *Yes.* > > > The prediction that you made (W and M) is confirmed for the 3-1 view, > Nobody knows if it's confirmed or not because nobody knows what the 3-1 view is. > > > but is refuted for both the W-guy and the H-guy. > The W-guy and the M-guy can't refute anything because the prediction wasn't made about them, it was made about the H guy. > > the refutation of your point that there is no first person, subjective, > indeterminacy. > Of course there is first person subjective indeterminacy ! My point was that there was no new type of f irst person subjective indeterminacy independent of the Quantum Mechanics type and of the Godel/Turing type discovered 90 years ago. 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.
