On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > You betray that you are so much Aristotelian that > Aristotle was a nitwit. > > > It is *the* very idea of Plato that Plato was a nitwit. > > Aristotle in a nutshell > .... > Should remain in his nutshell because there is absolutely positively nothing Aristotle can contribute to modern science, and the same thing goes to Plato. >> >> >> So there are an infinite number of Bruno Marchals in Everett's Many >> Worlds but all of them are zombies with no consciousness except for one, >> the one in this world; THAT AND ONLY THAT Bruno Marchal has *THE* FPI. > > > Of course not! I have no clue how you derive this. > Then I will give you a clue, the clue is "*THE"*. > > > They have all the FPI, > They can all have* A* FPI, but all of them can't have *THE* FPI. > > > You brag not reading the papers, > A proof is not like a novel, in a novel if you get to a bad part you can keep on reading in the hope that it will get better, but proofs never get better after errors so only a fool would keep reading after one is found. > >> >> Bruno is unable to answer the simple question " After "you" have been >> duplicated what one and only one city will "you" end up seeing, Moscow or >> Washington?" > > > > > Given that there has been a duplication, we have (in the 3-1 view) two > first person views, and to get them, by the definition given, we need to > ask the question to both copies. > So after asking all the questions to everybody you want to ask questions to and after the "you" duplicating experiment is long over what one and only city do "you" conclude "you" ended up seeing, Washington or Moscow? If this question has no answer (and gibberish has no answer) then it's not a thought experiment, it's a thought muddle. > > Both says I see only one city > That doesn't answer the question! What one and only one city did "you" end up seeing? If that question has no answer then stop using personal pronouns if people duplicating machines are around. > without having been able to predict which one in advance. Which one? Before they were duplicated and saw different things there was only one. Afterwords I would predict that the one that saw Washington would be the Washington Man and the one that saw Moscow would be the Moscow Man. What else is there to predict? What else is there to say? > > > So both confirms the FPI. > Both can't have much less confirm *THE* FPI. > both agree that they could not predict that answer in advance It's not just "in advance", even when it's all over nobody knows what the answer turned out to be because nobody then or now knows what the hell the question was. > > they could not predict that answer in advance, and that when opening the > door When the doors were opened was when the 2 diverged, until then it was one individual with 2 identical brains running in parallel. And one of them didn't become the Moscow Man and then saw Moscow, instead one of them saw Moscow and that experience turned him into the Moscow Man. So which one will become the Moscow Man? The one that will see Moscow. What more is there to say? > they knew in advance that they would get one bit of information. So what was that one bit of information do you have after the experiment that you didn't have before? If Moscow is zero and Washington is one is that one bit of new information that you have now but didn't have before a zero or a one? 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.
