On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> If it's really a well formed question then the personal pronoun "you" >> could be replaced with "John Clark" , but that can't be done without >> destroying the value of the thought experiment has to the theory. > > > > > Nope. It works very well with "John Clark" instead of "you". > OK fine, then the statement "John Clark will see *BOTH* Washington *AND* Moscow" works very well. >> >> In a world with people duplicating machines the question is far too vague >> to have an answer, > > > > Nope. The question is clear, and has a definite answer, once we > distinguish the 1-self > and [blah blah] > OK fine, then distinguish it. Do you want a prediction about the Helsinki 1-self or the Moscow 1-self or the Washington 1-self? > >> just as in our world the question "how long is a piece of string?" has no >> answer. And please, don't start going on and on about diaries again, two >> people remember writing that diary; which particular person and which >> particular piece of string are you talking about? > > > > > Both of them of course > OK fine, if that's what Bruno Marchal means by "you", the person who remembers writing the diary, then "you" will see *BOTH* cities. And of course if something else is meant by "you" then "you" will not see both cities, in that case what "you" will actually see depends on what the 3 letter word "you" means. In the our everyday world the meaning is obvious, but it wouldn't be in a world with people duplicating machines. >> >> So after one precise person had been duplicated and become two precise >> people tell me which one of those two precise people you're interested in > > > > > We are interested in both discourse. Both agree with "W v M", and both are > wrong with "W & M". > That is just flat out wrong. If it was agreed before the duplication that "you" means somebody who remembers writing the diary, and assuming the ability to reason logically is retained by both after the duplication, then both would agree that "You" saw both cities. It all depends on what the word "you" means, and that's why all personal pronouns should be banned from such thought experiments. > > Keep in mind that we ask for the prediction in Helsinki. > Yes but who precisely was the prediction requested in Helsinki supposed to be about? I assume it was about what further adventures the man (or in this case the men) who remember being in Helsinki would have in the future, but that is never made clear. > > > By computationalism we know that we have to verify the prediction for all > first person involved in the reconstitution. > Until it's nailed down exactly what the personal pronoun "you" means absolutely nothing can be verified or refuted, and thus it's not a experiment, it's not even a thought experiment. So forget personal pronouns and use proper nouns! >> >> If that answer is unsatisfactory then give me a more precise question. > > > > > What can John Clark predicts about its future first person experience in > Helsinki? > If "its" means John Clark then John Clark would predict John Clark would see both cities; not that predictions correct ones or incorrect ones, have the slightest thing to do with the sense of self. >> >> And if >> >> Everett >> >> is right then demanding a yes or no answer to the question "will >> Schrodinger's cat breathe the cyanide poison gas?" would be silly because >> it's a ill formed question that has no answer, the same as "how long is a >> piece of string?" or "what city will you see?". > > > > > Or "what city will John Clark see". > John Clark will see both cities and Schrodinger's cat will breathe the cyanide poison gas and Schrodinger's cat will not breathe the cyanide poison gas . I plant an apple tree and predict it will produce red apples and I predict it will produce green apples and I predict it will not produce a apple that is both red and green; does Bruno Marchal also believe that prediction is ridiculous? >> >> >> For the 42 time I DON'T CARE If MATTER IS PRIMARY! If your interest is >> consciousness it's irrelevant, primary or not primary matter is needed. > > > > > Only because you stop at the third step of the reasoning, > Reasoning? The third step was the point where the blizzard of unattributed personal pronouns became too dense to endure. > > It should be obvious, given the definition of 1p > The definition of the homemade term 1p is me, and the definition of me is 1p. And round and round we go. > > > using pronouns or name does not change anything here. > Then why does Bruno Marchal continue to use wall to wall personal pronouns in thought experiments despite being begged for years not to? 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
