On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > We obviously agree. The man in Moscow will not believe that "you will see > Moscow and noting else" would have been correct. He knows already that this > would be reftuted by the man in Washington, and, as a computationalist, he > knows than BOTH answer are correct, > Yes. > and so, only the prediction "W v M" was the correct one. That does not compute. If BOTH answer are correct then the Helsinki man will see Moscow AND Washington not Moscow OR Washington . Come on Bruno, this isn't rocket science. > The point is only that the H-man precited to be in one city and not > knowing one, > No Bruno, you just said " BOTH answer are correct" and one answer is "The Helsinki man will be in Moscow" and the other answer is " he Helsinki man will be in Washington" and if both are true th en you don't need to be a Kurt Gödel to make the logical conclusion that The Helsinki with be in BOTH Moscow AND Washington. And I can't see the slightest difficulty in t he Helsinki man being in 2 different cities at the same time if he has been duplicated and is 2 different people at the same time. > > >>> >> >>> 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. > > > > > Then you just change the identity criterion on which we have agreed since > long. > Bruno Marchal introduced the pronoun "they" not John Clark. And it is Bruno Marchal not John Clark who insists that inability of "they" to make a prediction before "they" exists tell us something deep about the nature of reality. > > > Or worst, you are telling me that the H-man is dead, and that > computationalism is false, making my point. > The H-man is not dead if "the H-man" means somebody who remembers being a man in H. If "the H-man" means something else then the H-man may of may not be dead depending on what the hell "the H-man" is supposed to mean. I've already told you what I mean be "the H-man". What do you mean? > > You fail very badly to convince us you do not understand ... > Huh? I couldn't fail to disagree with you less. >> >> and *two* can see *two* cities simultaneously >> with no difficulty whatsoever. >> > > > > That is playing with word. > IT'S THINKING WITH WORDS*!* Try "playing" with some words yourself and see if you can show that my words are incorrect. I don't think you can. > > > None of each copy can see the two cities at once. > So what?! The question wasn't about what one of the 2 copies will see, the question was was about what the Helsinki man will see. And the Helsinki man has been duplicated. And "duplicated" means there are 2 where previously there was one. And 2 things *CAN* be in 2 different places at the same tine, in fact that's what "2 things" means. > > > > None of the personal diaries contain "I opened the door and saw W and M at > once". > > Obviously. Very obviously. So what's the point of those idiot diaries other that to put additional convolutions in the the thought experiment to cover up logical flaws? > >> >> 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 you agree in advance they both get one bit of information, > They got ZERO bits on new information. Both before the duplication and afterward everybody knew Mr. W would see W and Mr. M would see M. That fact is true and if it's not also profound that's your fault not mine, it is after all your thought experiment. > >> >> 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. > > > > > Very good! Obviously: what is incompatible with this protocol is having > the two first experience at once. > Then obviously the "protocol" is imbecilic. >> >> >> 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. >> > > > > That is not a prediction. > It's a prediction, not a very daring prediction I admit but there is nothing else to predict. > > > It is a tautology. > I know, but the great thing about tautologies is they're always true. > > > You got the correct "1 bit" above, so why fake already you did not now. > T he correct "1 bit" above ? What are you talking about? Faking about what? > >> >> >> >> 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? > > > > > <sigh> Already answered. reread the post before asking the same question > repetitively. > If it wasn't gibberish Instead of typing the above you could have definitely answered my question with just one single ASCII character, but you did not. And you did not because it is gibberish. > > Wordplay. The context makes clear that it is "precise city" was expected, > and "which city" was the unknown in Helsinki. > Mr. Marchal, even after the experiment is long over the precise city is STILL unknown even in the precise city, and that is to be expected because with gibberish there is nothing there to know. > > The W man could not have know he (the H-man, JC) would be the one feeling > to be in W. > That's true, before the duplication the W man could not have predicted that he would be the one to see W, because before the duplication the W man did not exist. We don't have people duplicating in our word but even here similar things are true. In 1917 John Clark could not have predicted that in 2017 a solar eclipse will sweep across the USA because in 1917 John Clark did not exist. Does that prove solar eclipses are unpredictable? > > > he would have written in H in his diary > "This diary is stupid." >> >>> >> It's never been clear what the bet back in Helsinki was, but it's your >> thought experiment not mine so you tell me. > > > > > The 1p/3p difference entails it is isomorphic to a throw of a coin. You > bet what you want. P(W) = P(M) = 1/2. > That's real nice bafflegab, but what exactly is the bet? How can somebody win and how can somebody lose and who is the judge? >> >> I correctly predicted it and so did you. W will be seen by Mr. W's point >> of view, > > > > > That is a tautology. > I know, but I never said it was deep and a tautology is better than gibberish. >> >> I don't think we're going to get anywhere until you answer the question I >> asked in my last post, I repeat it now and look forward to your answer: >> >> *Are the following 2 questions equivalent?* >> 1) What will I see tomorrow? >> 2) Tomorrow what will the person who remembers being me right now see? > > > 1) I will see either W or M, but > [blah blah] > Yeah yeah yeah I've heard all this a thousand times before but please just answer the question, this is important. Are the above 2 questions equivalent or are they not? Yes or no. I say yes. What do you say? > > > it is better to make precise if you were talking about the 1p and 3p in 2). > Use whatever pee you like, if the same pee is assumed in both of the 2 questions are the 2 questions then equivalent? Yes or No? I say yes. What do you say? > >> >> Exactly what have we failed to predict? > > > > > The specific city that the H-man will live in > And what one specific city did it turn out the H-man lived in after the H-man was duplicated and became 2 and thus capable of living in 2 cities at the same time? Feel free to use and pee in your answer as long as one and only one specific city is mentioned. >> >> The above beautifully illustrates why "it" is gibberish. "It" is a demand >> of the name of *THE* one city >> t >> hat *THE *one candidate will see after *THE* one candidate is no longer >> one candidate and >> >> becomes *TWO* candidates in *TWO *cities. > > > > > Exactly, and there is only gibberish when you fail to take the 1p/3p > distinction into account. If you can do the prediction, do it. > There is one and only one person in the room with me, the Helsinki man. You want me to point to one man and say "you will end up in Washington" and point to another man and say "you will end up in Moscow". I am unable to do this because there is only one person in the room with me so I can't point to 2. You say this is a great discovery on a par with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. I say not so much. > > I know only one person having a problem with this. > If true then you know only one person who has any brains. 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 email@example.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.