On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> the copies could not ask anything because they didn't exist yesterday. > > > > > > No. It is always the "third person" who will ask all question, to the > Helsinki man, and to the copies. > Then who will be the judge to determine what the name of the one and only one city the Helsinki man ended up seeing? And why are you so afraid of the Helsinki man asking his own question? >> >> And the Helsinki man already knew the Washington man will see Washington > > > > > You already said this, but that is tautological, > And I also already said at least tautological statements are not gibberish, and in fact they have the additional virtue of being true. > > > and the point is that in Helsinki he does not know if he > ... > Yep, personal pronouns do an amazingly good job at hiding fuzzy thinking. Why else would Bruno Marchal keep using them? > > Please use the diaries > For what? They were written yesterday and today nobody can agree on who wrote them. > > > Yesterday I tell him, you will see Washington, or Moscow, but not both. It > will be like a coin throwing. > And today after you've learned all there is to know about it that's STILL the best you can say, and that is *NOTHING* like coin throwing! If you ask me today how a coin landed yesterday I just tell you, I don't say "it turned out the coin landed heads or tails but not both with 50% probability", I don't mention probability at all, I just mention the face it turned out that the coin landed on, and that can be done with ONE WORD, not a paragraph of bafflegab , just ONE WORD because that's all that's needed . But Nobody can do the same thing with the Helsinki man's "question" not yesterday and not today either. > > > > move to step 4. > To read more gibberish built on top of a foundation of gibberish? I don't think so. > > > you continue to talk with the tone "it is so obvious that you are wrong", > But you're not wrong, you'd have to improve your idea a great deal before it could reach the exalted status of being wrong. There is no disgrace in saying something that later turned out to be wrong, but there is in talking gibberish. > > >> There is one and only one difference between M and W: M will see M and >> not W and W will see W and not M. > > > > > So bot confirms "W v M", > No, it turned out neither saw W or M. And when you observe a coin flip you don't see it land heads or tails either. > > > And both understand immediately that the Helsinki man would have been > correct by predicting "W v M" > Then they would be equally correct in predicting "you" will see neither W nor M. But the best prediction of all would be "nobody will ever learn anything from any of this". > > You are in Helsinki. You are asked to write what you expect to live in the > diary that you will take with you in the duplication machine. What do you > write? > > 1) W & M > 2) W v M > 3) W > 4) M > 5) something else (and then what). > I pick #5 because when somebody asks question that makes absolutely no sense there is nothing to write about it but: " Some people like to write strings of words with a question mark at the end." And I've asked this 99 times but have never received an answer, what does a prediction, good or bad, have to do with the continuous feeling of self? > > in Helsinki, you cannot be sure that you will become the M-man, or the > W-man. > Not just in Helsinki, nobody will ever know if " you " will become the M-man, or the W-man because in this context nobody knows what "you" means, not even Mr. You. > > >>> >> >>> Just tell me what you write in the diary when still in Helsinki. >> >> > >> >> "I like to write strings of words with a question mark at the end." > > > > > > This eludes the question. > It's very easy to elude something that isn't there. > > Look, you have already accept to give your brain to a cryogenic socitey. > Yes. > > > Imagine that in ten years, the mainstream in that domain give good > argument that, by not having encrypted your brain data, you will be > "reconstituted" infinitely often, and with a proportion of 98% hellish > environment, and 2 % of heavenly environment. What is the probability that > you > ... > Yep, personal pronouns do an amazingly good job at hiding fuzzy thinking. Why else would Bruno Marchal keep using them? > > > would end up, from a first person perspective in a hellish environment? > Mr.You's fate is unknown but there is a 100% probability John Clark will end up in heaven and a 100% chance John Clark will end up in Hell. But I have to ask again, what does quality of predictions have to do with the continuous feeling of self? With or without duplication machines life will always look continuous looking from the present into the past, but with or without duplication machines it will never look continuous looking from the present into the future. 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.
