On 23 Aug 2017, at 01:13, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> I don't what another paragraph of bafflegab! You claim
"What is the name of the one and only one city I will end up seeing
after I became two?" is a real
> ... is a real question. yes. poorly phrased and slightly
ambiguous,
It's not slightly ambiguous, it's ASTRONOMICALLY ambiguous,
OK. Good you are aware.
but it's what you're asking
With a bit difference. I make precise that the question is on the
first person experience (1p-I). Your question is ambiguous in a
duplication context, as you are using the pronoun "I", which is used
both for the 3p-I (like in "I have two hands") and the 1p-I (like in
"I have a headache").
and it's the foundation on which you've built your entire
philosophical construction.
It begins with the 1p-3p distinction. You transform systematically
what I say in gibberish by systematically abstracting from that key
nuance. In a large part, the "mind-body" problem is the "1p versus 3p
relation" problem.
And that's why I refuse to read any more of your "proof".
You are clearly rejecting the entire subject.
>> and the answer is very easy to find, so let's hear it.
Knowing what you know today with the benefit of hindsight what one
and only one city name would you have answered the Helsinki
man's question with?
> To get the first person views, you need to tell me which copy
you ask the question,
Good god, do I really have to spell this out?! I didn't
ask either copy.
That is your mistake. the prediction is done in Helsinki, but the
verification is done in the two W and M cities.
Yesterday I asked the Helsinki man and only the Helsinki man because
there was nobody else to ask, yesterday neither copy existed.
You agreed that both the W-man and the M-man are the H-guy. You have
to compare the prediction in Helsinki (which is written in the diary
which enter the box) and the results: what is written in each diary
after the copies writte the result of the self-localization.
I'm amazed that after all this time I still have to point out this
very obvious and elementary fact.
You have convinced nobody. You are alone on this one.
> The point will be that both will answer something like
"Washington (resp. Moscow), and I could not have predicted it".
If they couldn't predict that the Moscow Man will see Moscow
and the Washington man will see Washington then they aren't very
bright.
Sure. But everyone *can* predict that. What the H-guy cannot predict
is if he will be the one feeling to have become the Moscow man, or to
the Washington man. You mock the diaries, but they are useful to see
that in Helsinki, you cannot predict what will be written in the diary
that will be split. The diary lakes this quasi-tautological, but not
tautological. Just tell me what you write in the diary when still in
Helsinki. the question makes sense because you already know that you
will survive, feeling to be in one precise city, with probability 1.
So what do you write *in Helsinki*?
>> After the duplication 2 people will have identical copies of
that diary in their hand,
> Yes. With their "prediction", and both can see that "W & M"
is refuted,
Today the day after the experiment was completed ask Mr. W 2
questions:
1) Are you Bruno Marchal?
2) Do you see W?
1) Yes.
2) Yes
But you forget to ask to BM to compare that result with the prediction
made in Helsinki. So
3) I am not in M, so "W & M" was false, and "W v M" was correct.
And then ask Mr. M 2 questions:
1) Are you Bruno Marchal?
2) Do you see M?
1) Yes.
2) Yes
But you forget to ask to BM to compare that result with the prediction
made in Helsinki. So
3) I am not in W, so "W & M" was false, and "W v M" was correct.
If the answer in no for any of those 4 questions then my prediction
made yesterday that Bruno Marchal will see 2 cities turned out to be
wrong. But I don't think they will say no. Do you?
1p-3p confusion. You can treat two people (W-BM and M-BM) like if it
was a unique person, even if those two people are legitimate
continuation of the H-guy. The point is that the H-guy does not know
in advance if he will feel to become the W or the M guy. he knows that
he cannot feel to be both (as we have no telepathic means).
Thanks for making even clearer the 1p/3p confusion. The argument of
step 3 works even if the copies were p-zombie, because in this step,
the definition of 1p is a 3p definition, like the use of the diary/
diaries exemplifies.
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.
