On 31 Jan 2017, at 00:01, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> You do have agree that the three people are the same H
person. But he is duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the
HM in M.
You were correct when when you said "he is duplicated",
therefore while in H any question of the form "what will he...?" is
meaningless because "he" is duplicated and the personal pronoun is
ambiguous after that.
Given the protocole, and the assumptions and definitions given, there
is no ambiguity at all.
> The H in Helsinki is no more there, so to confirm the
prediction, we have to ask both HW and HM, and both say that the
prediction "W v M" was correct, in both the 1p views,
So if they both agree and they are both correct then there must be
only one answer to the question. So what one city do both W and M
agree that H ended up seeing in the first person, Washington or
Moscow?
W and M, from the 3p view that both can have on themselves.
But the question is about the 1p experience, and both agree with "W or
M" being correct for the predictor in H, and verified in both cities.
> and that "W and M" is correct from the 3p views but incorrect
from the 1p-views, which was the one asked to predict in Helsinki.
That's all very nice but it doesn't answer the question I
asked, what one and only one city did H end up seeing?
The whole point is that in Helsinki the answer "H" CANNOT know the
ending city. The best correct prediction (W v M) assesses that
ignorance, which, as we assume computationalism, is necessary. We did
detailed this already more than once.
Your entire proof is built around the idea that a correct prediction
cannot be made in Helsinki,
?
A correct prediction has been made. It was "W v M" (exclusive "or").
but for that to work after the thought experiment is all over you've
got to tell us what the correct prediction turned out to be so we
can see that the correct prediction was not made. So what would the
correct prediction have been, M or H?
None. It is "M or H".
If you can not clearly and unambiguously answer that very simple
question then
Then we have the 1p indeterminacy.
the entire thing is nonsense because there is no way to tell if the
correct prediction was made or not.
Then there is no indeterminacy even with a coin.
We have just to ask them both, and it is easy to see that "W v M" is
verified by both, and none of "W" nor "M" is satisfied by both. Then,
it is enough to look at all precise definition given to see that "W v
M" is the best prediction possible at H. Like "Head or Tail" is the
best prediction when throwing a coin.
>>So you tell me, what one and only one city did H end up
seeing, W or M?
> W, and only W for the H guy finding himself in W.
> M, and only M for the H guy finding himself in M.
OK.
> Both agree that "W or M" was correct
No, they don't agree on that at all. One says W saw W and H saw
W. The other says M saw M and H saw M. The one thing they both agree
on is H saw W AND M.
About the 3p, or 3-1p view. That is correct, but does not answer the
question asked. But "W v M" was still the best prediction, and it is
verified by both, given that for M it is true that M -> (M v W), and
for W it is true that W -> (M v W).
> None claims suddenly to have the first person experience of
feeling themselves being in two cities at once.
That has no relevance on the question asked. The question was
what cities will H see, if both are H then H will see both cities.
Of course not.
H is duplicated, and know that in advance.
He knows in H that whatever happens, respecting the protocol, it is a
certainty that the H-guy (him, here and now in H) *will* see only one
city. That is true in all accessible situations available from H.
Where is this failed prediction you keep talking about?
? (the fail prediction is "W and M": it is violated in both
place, given that "W" and "M" represent the 1p views).
>>And yes both say they are in one place and one place only,
but if both also say they are H then which one should be believed, W
or M or both or neither?
> Both.
Fine. If both say they are H and one says H is in W and one says H
is in M and you believe both then the answer to the question "what
cities will H be in?" is rather obvious.
Yes, it is obvious both for the 3p view: (W and M), and for the 1p
view (W xor M).
> both confirm "W v M" (exclusive "or"), and both refutes "W &
M"
Neither can confirm or or refute "W v M" by themselves. W can say
that H sees W but W can say nothing about H seeing M, Mr. W knows
nothing about M, to find out about H seeing that you'll have to ask
Mr.M.
The guy in H has read the protocol, and knows that both will feel "W v
M" to be true, and none will feel "W and M" to be true, indeed. And
me, the guy who will verified the statistics by asking both copies,
get that "W or M" was correct for both.
> that part of the argument is understood by nine year old
children.
Nine year old children are not noted for their critical thinking
skills, that's why nine year old children "understand" things that
just aren't true.
That happens. But in this case you have not shown that the prediction
"W v M" was wrong, you have just again interpret W and M to be about a
3p view when it is about the 1p views. That simply eludes the
question, if not the persons into which H has differentiated.
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.
