On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That is why we have to make the question more precise, and replace "1)" by > either 1') "What will 1-you end up seeing?" or by 1'') "What will 3-you end > up seeing?". > > > In that case, given that we assume computationalism (so we know that 1-we > survive in one unique city), the answer to 1') is "1-I expect to find > myself in W or in M", and the answer to 1") is I expect anybody to see 3-me > in both W and M. > Wow, that's a lot of homemade jargon crammed into a very small space : 1) 1 2) 1' 3 1-I 4) 1-you 5) 3-you 6) 3-me 7) 1-we I give you credit for not getting into the peepee this time but I think 1-we is new. If you want to be precise then say exactly what each of the above end up seeing and how what they end up seeing differs from what all the others see. > > > the person in Helsinki expect to survive > Expects? I have no idea what the person in Helsinki expects to happen, nor do I care what he expects. However I do care about what does happen and that is that 2 PEOPLE not one will remember being the Helsinki man. To ask which one of the two is the real Helsinki man and who has the "*THE* 1p" is just silly. > > BTW you did not answer my last messages where this has been explained. I > also asked you a question there. I copy the message below for your ease(*). > Take all your time, but please avoid the ad hominem stuff. > I did not give an answer because I was not asked a question. You may have included a question mark in your remarks but you also specifically said the following" *"The question is on the first person experience which will be lived."* That's like claiming the discovery of a new form of indeterminacy because the following "questions" have no answer: How long is a piece of string? How many eggs? Which red blueberry is instantaneously redacted inside a jukebox? Look, if you ask me a question I will do one of the following 3 things: 1) Give the correct answer. 2) Give a incorrect answer. 3) Say I don't know. But I can't do any of those 3 things if I don't get a question, and although a question mark is necessary to type a question it is not sufficient. > > > The result has been known in the future by the first person(s) involved. > Yes person*s*, that's plural, that means there are more than one, and yet the "question" demands one and only one answer. And that's why it's not a question. Specify which the "THE 1p" you want to know about, the one in W or the one in M, and I'll give you an answer, probably the correct answer. > > > There is nothing paradoxical, as long as we distinguish the 1p and 3p > discourses. > I agree, talking about the "*THE* 1-p" in a world that contains 1-p duplicating machines is not paradoxical, it's not even odd, it's just gibberish. Paradoxes and odd things are interesting and fun, gibberish is not. > > > the question was on the unique* first person* experience that anyone can > live in a self-multiplication scenario > I know, and that's why it's not a question. I t doesn't specify which unique first person the "question" is about. If a question about the future can't be answered, not even approximately, not even in retrospect, then it's not a question. 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.
