On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 at 4:26 am, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> ​> ​
>> You seem to agree that it's obvious the duplicating machine won't make a
>> difference.
> Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. ​With or without a ​
> duplicating machine
> ​
> ​looking into the past
> you will
> ​ always know with 100% certainty what you did or did not see, and with
> or without a ​
> duplicating machine
> ​ looking into the future you can never predict with 100% certainty what
> you will see next and the best you can do is resort to probabilities.
> However without a duplicating machine, although you still can't make a
> prediction beforehand with 100% certainty, afterword you can know with 100%
> certainty what the correct prediction would have been, but that's
> not possible if duplicating machines are in the mix and it's not
> possible
> ​because then the following 2 sentences are NOT ​equivalent:
> 1) What will you end up seeing?
> 2) What did you end up seeing?
> ​
> Although
> ​ ​
> both have question marks at the end only one of them
> ​ ​
> is a question. The second one has a precise answer, the first one doesn't
> have a
> ​n​
> answer, not even a
> ​​
> approximate answer, not even in retrospect. They are not equivalent
> because the personal pronouns in them are not equivalent, and the personal
> pronouns are not equivalent because
> ​people​
>  duplicating machine
> ​s​
> are used and because the past and the future are not equivalent. We can
> remember the past but not the future.

The rat thinks, "I will get a reward if I go through this door". The copies
of the rat think, "great, I got the reward", or "no reward, I'm
disappointed, but I'll try again by going through this other door ". The
rat understands this at a primitive level. There is no issue of the rat
misusing pronouns, because rats don't use language.

​> ​
>> This has been the whole point of the discussion
> If
> ​ ​
> duplicating machine
> ​s​
> ​ ​
> make no difference why were they introduced into the thought experiment?
> And where is this indeterminacy I keep hearing about?
> ​> ​
>> looking forward to a 30% probability of a certain outcome without
>> duplication is equivalent (subjectively and behaviourally) to looking
>> forward to being copied multiple times with 30% of the copies experiencing
>> that outcome, whether you are a rat or a human.
> ​Without the ​duplicating machine after it's all over you can say
> "Yesterday I shouldn't have said there is a 30% chance event B will happen,
> yesterday I should have said there is a 100% chance event B will happen",
> but if personal pronoun duplicating machines are used then "you" couldn't
> say that. And that's not equivalent.

If you are one of the copies experiencing event B, you can say that, had
you known, yesterday you should have said there was a 100% chance of event
B happening. However, you could not have known, because what each copy
experiences is irreducibly random. Not even an omniscient oracle could
instil in a person undergoing duplication knowledge of the future which
would turn out correct for each copy.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

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.

Reply via email to