On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > you were confusing 1p and 3p. > What the hell is confusing about the difference between "I" and "you"? Off the top of my head I can't think of anything LESS confusing. > > > You confuse 1p and 3p, and then 1-1-p and 3-1-p, etc. > What the hell is the difference between 1-p and 1-1-p? Peepee notation sucks. > >> >> >> It most certainly is NOT confirmed if you call " >> >> all 1p copies >> " by the name they call themselves, John Clark. >> > > > > Utterly stupid semantic game. > John Clark admits it's not brilliant, but it's more than smart enough to utterly debunk Bruno Marchal's "proof". That's why Bruno's halfhearted attempt to get rid of the personal pronouns was abandoned almost immediately. It was obviously not working. > > > Pleasen replaced "all copies" by "each copy", and call them as you want. > OK . 1) Each copy saw only one city. 2) All the copies together saw 2 cities. 3) All the copies have an equal right to call themselves "John Clark". 4) The statement "John Clark will see two cities" turned out to be unambiguously true. 5) The statements "you will see one city" and "you will see 2 cities" and "you will see no city" turned out to be neither true nor false because in a world of people duplicating machines the personal pronoun "you" is ambiguous. > > > When interviewing each of them in the cities, each have no problem to > understand to whom I am asking the question, whatever words are used for it. > But the interviewees do *NOT* agree among themselves to whom the question was asked. So which one was right? If after the experiment is over that question can not be answered (and it can't be) then it's not a experiment or even a thought experiment, it's just a muddle. >> >> If you put a gun to my head I couldn't tell you what step 7 is. > > > > > Meaning: I don't read the papers, > Meaning life is too short to continue reading a "proof" after a colossal blunder has been made and the author has no idea how to fix it. > > You love the idea of disliking religion, no doubt, > Yes, there is no doubt about that. > > > but that does not prevent you to behave like a fundamentalist defender of > some catholic dogma. > > Even the Pope JP II took distance from them. > I have an idea, instead of going through all the trouble of calling me a dogmatic catholic fundamentalist about every other day as you have for the last several years let's just establish a new notation such that "INSULT#41" means "John Clark is a dogmatic catholic fundamentalist " and "RESPONSE#42" means " Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12 " . I think I'll give it a try: RESPONSE#42 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.
