On 21 Sep 2017, at 21:04, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Yesterday the Moscow man we can see today, was the Helsinki
man.
No. We agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow,
but yesterday nobody saw Moscow.
We agreed that the Moscow-man is the Helsinki man, like we agree that
the Washington-man is also the Helsinki-man.
they are the same person, even if now they live in separate location.
So yesterday I would have said "I predict that I the Helsinki man
will become two and become the Moscow man and the Washington man,
but as of today neither of those gentleman have been born yet
because as of today nobody has seen Moscow or Washington". You've
got to keep your terms straight, it's important.
But you must not neglect the question asked which concerns the first
person experience expected.
You will become two is only the third person description. It is
correct, but it miss the mention that those two will live the
experience of being in one city, not of being in two city.
So if you agree with P(tea) = 1, you agree with P(I see only one city)
= 1, too. So the H-guy can expect with P = 1 to feel in ONE city after
pushing the button. And obviously the H)guy cannot say which one, as
he knows that this will be false for at least one copy (and we want
all the copies verifying the predictions).
>> but of course he couldn't because yesterday the Moscow man
DID NOT EXIST.
> That makes no sense. Of course he did exist, he was in
Helsinki,
Now you're changing the meaning of "the Moscow man" again,
Not at all. Come on, we have agreed that, roughly speaking:
W-man = H-man
M-man = H-man
W-man ≠ M-man
but OK if that's the new meaning then the Washington man existed in
Helsinki too. So when you ask the question "What city do you expect
to see?" who are you asking, the Moscow man or the Washington man?
At that moment, you can consider them as fused. The H-man is both of
them, and that stage there is no problem of consistency, as the M and
W man have not yet differentiated. There is just no problem, because I
am asking just the H-man, about what he expect to live, given that he
believes in computationalism and the respect of the protocol.
If you want people to understand what you're saying you've got to
get your terms straight and stop changing then in mid sentence!
>>It was the very act of seeing Moscow that turned the Helsinki
man into the Moscow man,
> Without in any way killing the Helsinki man,
That depends on what "the Helsinki man" means, if it means
remembering being in Helsinki yesterday them the Helsinki man is
alive and well today and is in two places, if it means the man
currently experiencing Helsinki then the Helsinki man is dead as a
doornail.
Just read any posts in the past? We have agreed on all this.
The trouble is not only do your personal pronouns have no referent
but even the proper nouns have foggy meaning that change constantly.
I told you that the problem is equivalent for proper names and
pronouns. The solution is the same. just keep track all the times of
the difference between the 3p and 1p discourses, and take this into
account for the prediction of the first person experience.
This is some complicated stuff we have no experience in so intuition
is of little help, thus words can't be used casually, precision of
meaning is essential.
Don't patronize please. Keep in mind that UDA is not just what I found
50 years ago, it was also used only to motivate the precise definition
given in arithmetic. Self-reference is my expertize in logic, and
given that the "measure" problem concerns the domain of the first
person experience, that has been what took me many years, until I
realize that incompleteness makes the antique definition of Theaetetus
working again in arithmetical self-reference.
Now, here you make the step 3 looking difficult for basically nothing,
as the 1p and 3p definition used the simplest part of digital
mechanism: the personal memory. That is why in France they insisted
that I put the UDA as the main argument, actually, because kids
understands this easily indeed.
> What you can't predict is the specific location
And that is because you can't specify exactly what is suposed
to be predicted.
I don't understand that remark at all. You know you will push on a
button, open a door and see a city, which will be either W or M, and
the question is how you evaluate the chance to be in W, say. P(W) = ?
(Where, to repeat and avoid any ambiguity, "W" and "M" refer not to a
city, but to the first person experience of opening the door and
seeing a city").
>> John Clark canneither agree nor disagree with that until
Bruno Marchal explains if "you" is only the guy currently in
Helsinki today or if "you" includes guys who tomorrow will remember
being in Helsinki today.
> This has been answered many times. "you" means the guy in
Helsinki,
If that's what "you" means then I predict I will experience
absolutely nothing tomorrow because tomorrow I will no longer be the
guy in Helsinki.
I do not know if I should laugh or cry.
> Well, that could be confusing.
No shit Sherlock.
> Just use the diaries,
For what, toilet paper?
I guess I should cry.
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.
