On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Nobody expect one answer , but everybody can see that BOTH agrees having > one obtained one answer, > Hmm ...does the Moscow man really believe the correct answer to the Helsinki man's question "What city will I see?" should have been "you will see Moscow and nothing else"; well perhaps he does believe that, or perhaps he believes the correct answer would have been "you will see lollipop land " , but if he believes either of those things then the Moscow man is a fool. > > > and both vindicates the fact that they were unable to predict it in > advance. > Of course "THEY" couldn't predict it and it's not just predictions that "THEY" can't do, before the duplication "THEY" couldn't do a damn thing because "THEY" didn't exist before the duplication. The only one capable of even asking the question "What city will I see?" is the Helsinki man. As for the answer, if "I" means a person who remembers asking the question (and what else could it mean?) then the answer is obviously Moscow and Washington. > > we have agreed that Mr. W is Mr H, and Mr. M is Mr H, and the point is > that we have now > > Mr H see W *and* Mr H see M, but none can see them simultaneously > It's true no-*one* can see both cities simultaneously but that is irrelevant because the Helsinki man is now *two,* and *two* can see *two* cities simultaneously with no difficulty whatsoever. So how many cities will the Helsinki man see? *Two*. > > > from the 1p view > I get tired of saying this so I wish you'd get tired of writing that but there is no *THE* 1p view in a world that contains 1p duplicating machines, there is only *A* 1p view. > > > so now, there is a Mr H in W saying that he see W and not M, and vice > versa. In M, and in W, they BOTH admit that what they see in particular was > not predictable when they were(fused, so to speak) in Helsinki. > What do you mean not predictable?? You just predicted that Mr. W will see W and not M and that Mr. M will see M and not W, and your prediction turned out to be 100% correct! What have you failed to predict that will be revealed after the duplication? >> >> What more is there to say? What have we failed to predict that will be >> revealed after the duplication? > > > > > The city is which you, both of you, find themselves. > If "you" uses a you duplicating machine and becomes *two* then there is no *THE* city that you will end up in, there is only *A* city you will end up in. All this assumes that "you" means a person who remembers asking the question "what city will I end up in?". If that is not what "you" means then please explain what "you" does mean. >> >> I don't care what anyone expects to happen, I care about what does >> happen. I'd much rather interview the 2 people that came out of the >> duplicator than the one person that went in. > > > > > OK. So you interview them, and both explains that they have obtained one > bit of information, illustrating the indeterminacy > But I didn't need to interview them to get that information, I already knew it and they would too if they had any brains. > >> > >> If there are 2 people there is no THE >> >> first person, and that's why it's not a question, and without a question >> there can be no answer. > > > > There are two people, but they have both incompatible first person > experience, > What is incompatible about* two* people having *two* first person experiences? It couldn't be otherwise unless one is a zombie and have no first person experience. > > > so it makes sense to predict which will be lived. > And we've already correctly made that prediction, Mr. W will see W because seeing W is the only thing that can turn Mr. H into Mr. W, and Mr. M will see M because seeing M is the only thing that can turn Mr. H into Mr. M. And both Mr. W and Mr. M remember asking the question "What city will I see?". So what more is there to predict? > > We have accepted that *a good prediction, or theory, is supposed to > remain correct after the duplication*) > No. In a good theory after the duplication there is a way to tell if the prediction made by the theory was correct or incorrect. If it can't do that then it's not a theory and it's not even a incorrect theory, it's just gibberish. It's so bad it's not even wrong. > > So, In H the best prediction was "W v M". > If that's a exclusive OR and that prediction is correct then afterwards one and only one of those cities can be proven by the experiment not to have been seen. So which city was it, W or M? > > both the W-man and the M-man confirms it, and got the each the precise > result expected but not predictable in advance > Expected but not predictable ? That does not compute. > > Do you agree or not that each copies have got one bit of information. > Neither copy has any information I didn't already have long before the duplication. > > you are denying the first person experience > Yes I am denying *THE* first person experience in a world that contains first person experience duplicating machines, but I am not denying* A* first person experience . 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.
