On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> there was supposed to be one new bit of information that is known after >> the experiment but not before, > > > > In the 1-view, which remain both unique from the 1-view. > Then which one has *THE UNIQUE* 1-view, the Moscow man or the Washington man? > >> >> but before the experiment the Helsinki Man already knew that >> t >> he one that will see Moscow >> will become the Moscow man; >> > > > Yes, but he know also that the one in Washington will see Washington. > Exactly, everybody involved knew everything so nobody was surprised by any of events after the events that transpired after duplication so nobody learned anything new. >> >> so what exactly is that one new bit of information? > > > > > W for the H-guy feeling being in W. > That's not new information, The Helsinki man already knew that when the Helsinki man walked into the Helsinki man duplicating machine the Helsinki man's body would be duplicated. and the Helsinki man also knew that when the Helsinki man saw Washington the Helsinki Man would turn into the Washington man. There were no surprises, not one bit of new information was obtained by anyone about anything, > > M for the H-guy feeling being in M. That's not new information, The Helsinki man already knew that when the Helsinki man walked into the Helsinki man duplicating machine the Helsinki man's body would be duplicated. and the Helsinki man also knew that when the Helsinki man saw Moscow the Helsinki Man would turn into the Moscow man. There were no surprises, not one bit of new information was obtained by anyone about anything, > > >>> >> >>> and that it refutes the prediction "W & M". >>> >>> >> > >> >> I don't know if it refutes it or not, what exactly was the >> >> "W & M" >> prediction about? >> > > > About the future first person experience expected by the guy in Helsinki, > If the guy in Helsinki just walked into a Helsinki guy duplicating machine then there is no such thing as *THE* future first person experience there is only *A* future first person experience . I Mean... what is it about the word "duplicated" that confuses you? > > >>> >> >>> Then, given the numerical identity, it gives P(M) = P(W) = 1/2. >> >> > >> >> OK there is a 50-50 probability, but a 50-50 probability of who seeing >> what? > > > > Of seeing W. > Of who seeing W. There is and has always been a 100% probability (not 50%) that the sight of W will turn the H man into the W man. > > Or of seeing M. > And there is and has always has been a 100% probability (not 50%) that the sight of M will turn the H man into the M man. And because H has been duplicated there is a 100% probability of both these things happening. > >> >> >> but >> >> Bruno Marcha >> >> l >> >> didn't answer the question, >> >> what was that one bit of information do >> >> *YOU* >> ** >> have after the experiment that >> >> *YOU* >> ** >> didn't have before? >> >> > > Please, don't forget that in this duplicating experience, we get two > person views, and thus your question admits two different answers. > If it has two different answers then obviously the personal pronoun "*YOU*" is ambiguous in this situation; so unless Bruno Marchal enjoys speaking gibberish Bruno Marchal should stop using the word "*YOU*" when dealing with situations where *YOU* duplicating machines exist. > > > from the HM, and from the HW guys, they get one bit of information, that > they were not disposing before pushing on the button > That's simply not true. Everybody knew that after pushing the button the H guy would have 2 bodies, and everybody knew beforehand that seeing M would turn one of those bodies into the M man and seeing W would turn the other body into the W man. And that is exactly what happened, nobody was surprised at anything and nothing new was learned by anybody. > > One said, "goddam, I see only Washington and not Moscow, I got that one > bit of information predicted by computationalism!", and the other said > "goddam, I see only Moscow and not Washington, I got that one bit of > information predicted by computationalism!". > And both would say "Goddamn I got that information long before my bodies were duplicated and before I'd ever seen Moscow or Washington, I knew it back when there was only one Helsinki man and I was him. John K Clark > > Bruno > > > > > 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. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
