On 31 Aug 2017, at 18:39, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> If he's about to enter the machine but hasn't yet done so
then you're simulating the Helsinki man. The simulation shows that
IF the Helsinki man is rational (and he might not be especially on
matters like this, in fact most people aren't as this list proves)
> Lies. Only you have a problem with this.
And everybody known science is a popularity contest and truth
is whatever gets the most votes.
So you admit being alone on this, and your point above was just a
rhetorical trick. That was my point.
>> then the Helsinki man expects that very soon TWO people will
remember being the Helsinki man
> In the third person description. But that is not the question
asked.
Perhaps not but John Clark doesn't know because nobody, absolutely
nobody has clearly articulated exactly what the question is,
Not at all. That is pure lie.
in fact they can't even clearly say approximately what the question
is; nor can they explain why they are surprised that you can't make
a prediction, or do anything else for that matter, IF YOU DON'T EXIST.
but neither of them will be in Helsinki.
>Both of them will be the Helsinki person, by the definition of
personal identity we have agree on.
Ok I agree. So if each of them is the Helsinki person, and if each
sees a different city, and if 1+1 is still equal to 2 ,then you tell
me, how many cities did the Helsinki person end up seeing?
That has never been the question. But 3-1 you + 3-1 you = 2 3-1-you,
yes indeed. The key point is that 1-you + 1-you can give only one 1-
you (+ a 3-1-doppelganger), or you believe in a telepathy which makes
not sense with our hypothesis.
It sure seems like two to me. I know what you're going to say, in
the peepee but not the poopoo.
Yes, the 3p/1p nuance. Calling it "peepee" shows how much you care on
this distinction, which is nevertheless the key of the understranding
of the 1p-indeterminacy.
> And both will confirm that they have obtained one bit of
information.
What bit of information was that? I can't think of any information
they have obtained that everybody else didn't already have long
before the duplication.
If that was the case, they can give it to the H-man. let us give him
the bit of information "I am the W-man", and let us do the
duplication. The W-man confirms, but the M-man refutes, and so the
prediction was wrong, by the definition given of the 1p. QED.
What else do you want to know, what else is there to predict?
Where you will find yourself after pushing on the button.
As usual Bruno Marchal is hiding behind pronouns to cover up fuzzy
thinking.
The difficulty is exactly the same with proper noun. But the
difficulties vanish away with pronouns and proper nouns if we add the
"peepee", which eliminate all the ambiguities.
If John Clark knew what "yourself" meant in a question about the
future and a man about to enter a yourself duplicating machine then
John Clark could provide an answer.
You know what it means, but *you* make it imprecise by seeing "peepee"
in the precision asked, but then you just eliminate the first person,
making you non-mechanist.
If you are OK with P(coffee) [...]
To hell with your damn coffee!
Saying" the hell with" is hardly an argument. I guess you do not want
understand. Like we say in French: "il ny a de pire sourd que celui
qui ne veut pas entendre" (there is nothing more deafening that the
unwillingness to listen).
> you cannot write in your diary [...]
To hell with your damn diary!
Of course, you dislike anything which remind you the 3p/1p
distinction. Calling it "peepee" will not make it disappear.
You illustrate how dumb you need to look to avoid the consequence of
the reasoning, which is a sort of reductio ad absurdum.
You don't need to insist, as I think the list has got it, though.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> "What one and only one city will YOU see after YOU have
been duplicated and become two?"
> That question is gibberish, because it lacks the key
precision needed.
BULLSHIT! Stripped of its meaningless pronouns
They are simple indexical, and they are source of no problem, unless
you left out the "peepee".
and homemade baby talk
Which you need to do indeed to make it gibberish. But that is your
doing.
that is exactly precisely the "question" Bruno Marchal is asking;
Obviously not.
That is only the gibberish that you create, by deleting the precision
given, by only rename it "peepee", but renaming something cannot
invalidate a reasoning, it can only make it looks gibberish.
You would have an argument, you would not need all those rhetorical
maneuvers.
and yes it is gibberish
Only stripped out in the way you described. Everyone can take a proof,
suppress some key words in it (by calling them by name) and say: look
it is gibberish. Hardly convincing ...
Bruno
and that's why it is not a question its just words with a question
mark at the end.
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.
