On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > In a post you agreed with principle 1: > Principle 1: if the guy in Helsinki is assured that the event X will be > statified/realized at both W and M, then P(X) = 1. > Probability is a measure of confidence, so obviously if the guy in Helsinki is assured that event X will happen then for him P(X)= 1 because that's what being assured means. Yes that's not very deep but hey, it's your thread not mine. > > and you have agreed with principle 2: P_t(X_q) ≠ 1 => P_t'(X_q) ≠ 1, if > t' < t, and q > t (P_t = probability evaluated at t, and X_q = some event > at time q. > I don't know if I agree with that or not because the above is confusing, a event has a specified time and place but you're talking about the same event at different times, t and t'. And what exactly does P refer to? I know it's probability but the probability that who assigns to what as seen by who? I will say that if I know something today I will know it tomorrow unless I've forgotten it. And I will say if I'm certain about something today then I will be certain about it tomorrow unless I was wrong. And I will say that if I assign a probability that fact X is true and I receive more information about fact X tomorrow then tomorrow I will assign a new probability to fact X, and that new probability could be larger or smaller than yesterday's probability depending on what that new information is. > > From this I have derived the indeterminacy > It's not a big news flash that the future is uncertain. > > > and apparently you change your mind on principle 1. > No I still think that if I am certain of something then I would assign a 100% probability of it happening, and only time will tell if my confidence was justified. >> >> >> >> BOTH copies are absolutely convinced that they are the Helsinki man and >> BOTH are correct, I think you agree on that. > > > > > Yes. > At least we agree on one thing. > >> So it makes sense to ask what one city the Moscow man sees and >> >> it makes sense to ask what one city the >> Washington man sees but it makes no sense to ask what one city the >> Helsinki man will see. >> > > > > Why? > *WHY*?? Because the two see two cities and BOTH of the two are absolutely convinced that they are the Helsinki man and BOTH of the two are correct , so if the Helsinki man will see two cities it makes no sense to ask the Helsinki man what one and only one city the Helsinki man will see! And that is why establishing personal identity can only come from remembering the past and never from trying to predict the future. > > > He knows that he will > [...] > ... and the pronoun party continues.... 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
