On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> the only way John Clark knows how to interpret " > > What does happen is 3p, and the question is about the 1p > " is that the 1p does not happen after duplication in which case John > Clark has no idea what "1p" means. > > > > > No the 1p happens in the two places. > The? A 1p happens in two places, and there is nothing very unusual in 2 diferent things, like 2 different things that go by the name "you", occupying 2 different places except that due to technological limitations (not scientific ones) you duplicating machines haven't been invented yet. But it's coming. > > > When I say that the question is about the 1p, it means the content of the > 1p. That is a subjective happening. > Obviously, otherwise it would be 3p unless you've suddenly changed your homemade peepee notation. > > >> > >> After duplication, both copies will have a (single, definite) subjective >> experience. > > > > Sure. > So both will have a 1p and neither will have *THE* 1p because *THE* 1p does not exist. > > after the duplication, both know very well who they are, > They both say that they are Bruno Marchal and if Bruno Marchal is rational neither would dispute the other's claim. As for deciding if one or both or neither is "you" that depends entirely on what "you" means in a world that has "you" duplicating machines in it. > > > computationalism entails it can only be W, or M. > The above depends entirely on what the referent to "it" is. Goddamn pronouns! > > > The guy in Helsinki knows that in advance, and so can predict P(W v M) = > 1, and P(W & M) = 0. > Sure that's possible, if the guy in Helsinki is a fool he could predict monkeys will fly out of his ass. But I'm more interested in what will happen that in what some jackass believes will happen. >> >> I don't assume "comp", remember? > > > > > Sorry, but you accepted the step 0 and the step 1, which means that by > definition you assume or accept computationalism > I accepted computationalism when I was about 16 and can find no reason to think differently today. > > > abbreviated by comp. That is no abbreviation! As I've said, the way you use your baby talk word "comp" has little or nothing to do with computationalism. >> >> Usage is always more important that definitions. > > > > Not in science. > In everything. Definitions are made of words and those words also have definitions also made of words and round and round we go; the only thing that breaks us out of that infinite loop is usage. Where do you think lexicographers got the information to write their dictionaries? Only one place, usage. > > > Because you put step 3 in comp, > I have never put anything in "comp". > > > but step 3 is not part of comp. > I don't care if step 3 is part of "comp" or not. >> >> It is up to you to show which of the 2 people after the duplication who >> go by the name of "you" is THE One True YOU, the only "you" that >> is relevant in determining if the prediction made in Helsinki was correct >> or not. > > > > This is ridiculous. There are no TRUE you, > John Clark is glad Bruno Marchal agrees, but if there is no TRUE *you* then Bruno Marchal has no business using that ambiguous personal pronoun in thought experiments. However there is a TRUE Ed, two in fact, so that word should be used instead. > > > comp entails that > [...] > I don't care what "comp" entails. > > Ed is in W and Ed in M is not the same as Ed feels to be in W and in M. > So Ed is in W but Ed does not feel to be in W and the duplication has turned Ed into a zombie who feels nothing. Perhaps that is what "comp" entails but it is certainly not what computationalism entails; I believe in computationalism but have no opinion about "comp". > > > For the billionth time, you give me the correct 3-1 prediction, but > John Clark is surprised John Clark gave the correct 3-1 prediction because John Clark does not know what a 3-1 prediction is and has grave doubts that Bruno Marchal does either. > > the question is about the future 1p that you will live, > The future 1p that who will live? And in a world with "you" duplicating machines why "the future" and not "a future"? > > By saying the "hell with viewing peepee", is like saying "the hell with > the question you asked" > Yes to hell with the "question" because nobody asked a question, somebody just typed a bunch of ASCII characters and then put a question mark at the end. And to hell with that. >> >> >> However >> after the duplication if >> Bruno Marchal >> asked John Clark "are you you in the 1p view or are you you in the 3p >> view" John Clark wouldn't have any idea how to respond to such a silly >> question. >> > > > > Indeed, very silly question. I can't agree more. > > Silly though it undoubtedly is It's very unclear why that question is sillier than "what one and only one city will you see after you has been duplicated and becomes two?". > > The question is more how you evaluate the chance of seeing Moscow (say). > If you say P = 1, then > [...] > John Clark wouldn't say anything until the question is understood and the identity of that mysterious Mr. You is identified. The chance of who seeing Moscow? > > in the iterated case you must predict MMMMMMM... and the chance of this > diminish like 2^n, > > as almost all copies confirm. > Exactly what is it that almost all copies are confirming? >> it >> has no answer because it is not a question at all, it is just >> gibberish with a question mark at the end. > > > > > If that is gibberish, then you are telling me that you die when you are > duplicated. > Who will die when who is duplicated? 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.
