On 24 Apr 2017, at 02:13, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> John Clark understands the setup but not the question
because a very odd word was used in it, "I". Not that predictions,
correct ones or incorrect ones, have anything to do with a sense of
personal individuality but John Clark predicts that John Clark
will experience all of the above except for #0. John Clark will be
able to narrow that down as soon as Bruno says which of the
2^(16180 * 10000) * (60 * 90) * 24 John Clarks is Mr. I.
> Because you forget again [...]
John Clark had not forgotten that Bruno Marchal used the personal
pronoun "I" in the question and NOT the proper noun "John Clark";
I use "I" because there is no ambiguity, given the definition given,
and it is useful to remind that the experience is on the future 1p.
I just refuse to use the proper noun, because it introduces the slope
toward the 3_1 view, where what you say will be obviously correct, but
non relevant.
I just refuse to help you in building your rhetorical trick.
and John Clark knows that makes a astronomically large difference if
there are 2^(16180 * 10000) * (60 * 90) * 24 John Clarks.
> that you have already agree that all John Clarks are the same
person as the one before the experience
Yes but Bruno Marchal has forgotten that although both the
Moscow Man and the Washington Man are the Helsinki Man that does NOT
mean the Moscow Man is the Washington man.
Not forgotten. It is the key to get the indeterminacy lived in Helsinki.
All ducks are birds but not all birds are ducks.
> the prediction asked was about the 1p experience,
John Clark does not know what "THE 1p experience" means if
there are 2^(16180 * 10000) * (60 * 90) * 24 John Clarks. As
said before, the setup is clear but the question is not.
It is all experiences obtained, but seen from their own perspective.
And all says I see only one city, so the H guy can predict "I will see
one city", and as he accept that both will be him, he accept that he
cannot predict which one in advance.
> we see that the prediction "I will see all movies" is
falsified by all the Mr. I relevant here,
Who said "I will see all movies"? John Clark will see all
movies.
To give the 3-1 description, and thus elude the question asked.
> "I" is not ambiguous at all,
Good. Then you will have no difficulty in proving that simply
by retiring the personal pronoun "I" and always using the proper
noun instead in all future thought experiments!
I did, and will not repeat. Of course at some point, I was obliged to
distinguish 1-John-Clark and 3-John Clark, to get the prediction, and
its verification.
Your worry with "I" is akin to the worry of the materialist with the
notion of consciousness, or soul, or first person, indeed. But it is
ridiculous in the present setting, because we use only a third person
notion of "I" (the content of the diary taken in the duplication box),
and so anyone can verify the reasoning just by 3p logical derivation.
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.
