On 07 May 2017, at 23:38, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>>John Clark agrees with Bruno Marchal that personal
pronouns are ambiguous in a world that contains people duplicating
machines because the referent will always be unclear, but for years
John Clark has proposed is a very simple solution to this problem,
just use proper nouns.
> It clearly does not work,
If a proper noun is not the referent of the personal pronouns
Bruno Marchal loves to through around with abandon then WHAT IS?
When Bruno asks "what city will you see?" who exactly is Bruno
asking the question of?
1) See my post of last week where I have replaced "you" by BM.
2) "you" mean here the guy in Helsinki, I thought you would know that,
as we have agreed on this since years.
>>> you ask a question which just does not make any
sense.
>> EXACTLY! PRECISELY! The question "what one and only one
city will I see after I walk into that I duplication machine?" makes
absolutely no senses. It's gibberish.
> False.
Huh? You just said it's "a question which just does not make
any sense".
In the 3_1 view, and it makes sense in the 1-view. The context made
that so clear that I forgot to repeat it myself.
> as the two copies will easily confirm.
Then what is the the name of the one and only goddamn city that
the two copies agree the Helsinki man ended up seeing??? If
that question can't be answered with ONE WORD that proves the
question is gibberish. And don't tell me it can't be predicted,
I'm not talking about prediction
Then you change the subject. Step 3 asked for the prediction done in
Helsinki, and with the first person discourse defined by the diary
when it is taken in the copy and cut box.
I'm talking about history; you insist the Helsinki man will end up
seeing Moscow OR Washington but not both, so now that the experiment
is over tell me what one and only one city the Helsinki man ended up
seeing.
Very simple, dear John. As the guy in Helsinki guy survived in both
cities, in two incompatible first experiences, we have to look at both
diaries, and we see that one wrote "I predicted that I will see both W
and M, but I have to admit that I see only W, so I was mistaken; it is
only W" ,
and the other diaries contains "I predicted that I will see both W and
M, but I have to admit that I see only M, so I was mistaken; it is
only M". So Bruno ws right, after all, given that the personal diary
is not about all possible first experience, but the specific one we
live when opening the box.
Let me put it another way, if after the experiment was over and you
observed all the results you then got into a time machine and went
back to Helsinki before the duplication and the Helsinki man asked
you "what city will I end up seeing?" what one word would you utter
in reply, Moscow or Washington?
First person experience are personal, and non communicable. I can only
answer that both guy have suddenly understand the question, and both
concluded that they should have predict "M v W", as both agreed that
they definitely see only one city.
>>> No, I can't because you ask me for one answer,
where we know that there are two answers.
>> EXACTLY! PRECISELY! And those two answers are Moscow AND
Washington.
> Ambiguous.
But you just said there are two answers, if Moscow and Washington
are not those two answers then please tell me what those two answers
are! If you can't do that then the answer is ambiguous because the
question is ambiguous.
>> And it's even known who will see what, The Washington man
will see Washington and the Moscow man will see Moscow.
> OK, that's correct, and confirms the necessary first person
indeterminacy lived by the guy in Helsinki.
How can it be indeterminate when a correct prediction has just
been made?
The correct, but uninteresting and trivial, prediction was "The
Washington man will see Washington and the Moscow man will see Moscow".
Yet, the Helsinki-guy cannot know in advance if he will feel to be the
Washington man, or the Moscow man, and so cannot use your correct
tautology, and that justifies the first person indetermiacy lived in
Helsinki.
> You say "I" will see one and only one city so after the
experiment is over it's not unreasonable to ask what that one unique
city turned out to be. You admit such a question is ridiculous and
I agree,
>The question is not ridiculous.
I now quote a fellow by the name of Bruno Marchal: "you ask a
question which just does not make any sense."
It makes sense for the 3p discourse on the future 1p discourse. It
makes no sense for the 1p discourse on the future 1p discourse.
>> After the duplication if you can point to one and only
one person who wrote that diary then I'll stop saying "to
hell with the diary".
> I will no more answer this, as I have done it many times,
Bruno must have done so in that wonderful unicorn post that I've
been hearing about for the better part of a decade but have
never managed to find.
>> That would be pointless because there is no way to tell
if the pascal triangle, or anything else for that matter, had turned
out to have made a correct prediction or not.
>A simple counting argument shows this to be wrong.
Counting argument? What on earth are you going to count? There is
no way to ever tell if a prediction turned out to be right or
wrong.
It is an easy exercise for anyone capable of distinguishing the diary
out of the boxes, and the many diaries which have been multiplied, and
contains the specific lived experiences we are interest in at the step
3.
You just continue to eliminate the 1p experience(s), or the subjective
life of the experiencer(s).
That makes my point. Materialist must negate the personal experiences,
even in this simple case where the experiences are 3p-described in the
many personal diaries resulting from the self-multiplications.
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 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.
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 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.
