On 20 Jul 2017, at 20:42, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
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
.
> in 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.
Of course there is. Imagine yourself at the place of the W-guy. He
will say "so [The] was for W". Similarly, the M-guy will say "so [the]
was for M".
And both will understand that "THE", when used in Helsinki was
referring to W or to M, and never both, making that "THE"
undetermined, as we wanted to show.
> 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?
The consensus is that "the" was meant for one specific city, (both
copies agree) and that makes "W or M" the best prediction possible in
Helsinki, and thjat makes "W and M" the one which is always false, for
all copies first person points of view. Both copies agree that after
the experience has been completed, they have seen only one city, so
that the 3p-and-symmetry has become two 1p-or-asymmetry.
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.
