On 7/14/2016 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 15/07/2016 9:42 am, Jason Resch wrote:
I printed the following "Duplicate Questionnaire" and gave one to
both John-Washington, and John-Moscow. The questionnaires each had 8
questions:
1. What city did you last recall being in?
2. How many cities do you see now?
3. What is the name of the city you see before you?
4. True/False: You see two cities right now:
5. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington was:
6. True/False: The prediction that you see Moscow was:
7. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington and Moscow was:
8. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington or Moscow was:
When I gave the questionnaire to John-Washington, he filled out the
following answers (in bold):
1. What city did you last recall being in? *Helsinki*
2. How many cities do you see now? *One*
3. What is the name of the city you see before you? *Washington*
4. True/False: You see two cities right now: *False*
5. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington was: *True*
6. True/False: The prediction that you see Moscow was: *False*
7. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington and Moscow was:
*False*
8. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington or Moscow was:
*True*
When I gave the questionnaire to John-Moscow, he filled out the
following answers (in bold):
1. What city did you last recall being in? *Helsinki*
2. How many cities do you see now? *One*
3. What is the name of the city you see before you? *Moscow*
4. True/False: You see two cities right now: *False*
5. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington was: *False*
6. True/False: The prediction that you see Moscow was: *True*
7. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington and Moscow was:
*False*
8. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington or Moscow was:
*True*
Both Johns expressed deep regret over insulting people on the
Everything list, most especially Bruno. It turned out neither
John-Washington's, nor John-Moscow's prediction that they would see
both cities was true from their own first person points of view.
But you have introduced a distinction between John-W and John-M that
is not present in the original protocol. Remember that the criterion
of personal identity you are working with is based on person memories
(verified by a personal diary if necessary). Both copies of John have
these memories and these diaries, so they both have equal claims to be
John. "John", as this duplicated person, predicts with certainty that
he will see W, and that he will see M, so he predicts that he will see
both cities.
The fact that this appears odd is that our conventional intuition is
essentially dualist -- we think that there is a central core that is
the "real me" that gives me my continuing sense of personal identity.
This intuition breaks down when you have duplication of persons.
Although I think JKC has a point about pronouns, I don't see what it has
to do with Bruno's theory. He just proposes this as an illustration of
first-person-indetermancy as implicit in Everett's interpretation of
QM. It has problems with probability, but so does Everett's QM - what
does probability refer to when everything happens. The question of
which JKC just gets mapped to which world.
Brent
--
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.
