Le 20 juil. 2017 20:42, "John Clark" <johnkcl...@gmail.com> a écrit :
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> >> If it >> 's >> useful and can be used to distinguish between the two then you can easily >> tell me which one has "*THE* 1p view", the Washington man or the >> Moscow man. >> I'm all ears. > > > > > I have answered this a billion times. > > I will answer it a billion + 1 times. > I've told you a million times don't exaggerate. > > The guy has been duplicated. So in the 3-1 view, there are two 1-views, > That's real nice but that's not what I asked. I want to know which one has "*THE* 1p view". >> >> What the hell are you talking about? You just correctly predicted >> exactly what will happen, and it was easy! I repeat, what more is there to >> predict? > > > > > Read carefully: what is asked to preedict is the current experience, > There is no such thing as *THE* ** current experience there is only *A* * * current experience because there are two, and you correctly predicted there will be one in W and one in M. So I repeat my question, what more is there to predict? > > > You missed "current experience after the duplication". > And you missed specifying whose current experience after the duplication you want information about, the W man or the M man. The question "what one and only one city will *YOU* see after *YOU* have been duplicated and there are two of *YOU*?" is just as profound as the question "what one and only one integer is larger than 2 but smaller than 5?"; deep philosophical conclusions can not be derived from the fact that neither question has a answer. > > You older answer "W and M" is directly refuted by BOTH individuals. > But it is not refuted by H and H was the man the prediction was about; when the prediction was made neither W nor M even existed so nobody could tell them a prediction, nor tell them anything else for that matter. >> >> >> I will provide such a prediction algorithm just as soon as you tell me >> exactly WHAT THE HELL YOU WANT ME TO PREDICT! > > > > > Whay you, or any person doing the experience can expect to live, > The W man can expect to live in W and the M man can expect to live in M and the H man can expect to live in both. What more is there to predict? > > > from the FIRST PERSON pov. > THERE IS NO *THE* FIRST PERSON pov ! > > The 3-you, or the 3-1-you becomes two, by definition of the protocol. > Protocol my ass! I know bafflegab when I see it. > > It looks like you consider yourself as a zombie when getting an digital > brain, which means you are abandoning computationalism. > This is really getting silly. > >> >> I can't answer the question "will this atom of uranium decay in the next >> hour?" but after one hour I could say what the correct answer to the >> question would have been, so it was a legitimate question I just had no way >> of knowing what the answer was at the time. But long after your thought >> experiment is over I* STILL* couldn't say what the correct answer to the >> question "what one and only one city will you end up seeing?". > > > > > Your copies know, and that is what count, > No they do not know! If you think I'm wrong then interview them both and tell me what the one and only one correct answer would have been back in Helsinki to the question "Will I see W only or will I see M only?". If you can't answer that question even retroactively, not even after the experiment is long over and all the data is in and has been analyzed (and you can't) then it is not a question at all it is just a sequence of letters with a question mark at the end. > > > unless you eliminate the first person experience, > If there are 2 of *YOU* there is no *THE* first person experience . > > i > n which case you have become a p-zombie. > Are p-zombies related to what Trump did in that Moscow hotel room? >> >> I predict that the perfect answer to a gibberish question is a gibberish >> answer. > > > > > You are eliminating the first person, > If there are 2 of *YOU* there is no *THE* first person experience . > > > confirming that materialist needs to eliminate consciousness > That would be unnecessary, eliminating gibberish would be quite sufficient. > > > and all first person notions. > No need to get rid of all first person notions , just *THE * first person notion . > > > you do eliminate the first person, > If there are 2 of *YOU* there is no *THE* first person experience . > > > and you never do the thought experience: you never go to the point of > listening both copies > I presume you listened to both copies so now you know what the correct answer to the Helsinki Man's question "what one and only one city will I end up seeing, W or M?". So after conferring with both W and M what is the consensus, did it turn out to be W or M, what should I have told the Helsinki Man? A simple OR instead of AND. Next answer next year, as your troll will last till your death it seems. Bye 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. -- 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.
