On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:19 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, > We agreed that today the Moscow man is the Helsinki man of yesterday BUT the Helsinki man of yesterday is NOT the Moscow man of today because yesterday the Moscow man DID NOT EXIST. You confuse the past with the future and the fact that the two can not be treated the same way. > > > you must not neglect the question asked > I have no choice, I must neglect the question asked because nobody knows what that question is, least of all you. > > > which concerns the first person experience expected. > I care about the truth not expectations, and which THE first person experience are you talking about? THE first person experience of the Helsinki man today? THE first person experience of the Helsinki man tomorrow? THE first person experience of the Moscow man today? THE first person experience of the Moscow man yesterday? THE first person experience of the Washington man today? THE first person experience of the Washington man yesterday? Or the first person experiences today of the people who remember being in Helsinki yesterday. I need precision, sloppy language just won't do. > > You will become two is only the third person description. > Which first person experience Is Mr. You, which ONE is different from all the others and uniquely deserves the noble title of "*THE*"? >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> 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, > We did but then unannounced you changed what the phrase meant in the middle of your post. We had agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow, but yesterday nobody saw Moscow so obviously yesterday the Moscow man DID NOT EXIST. But now you say "the Moscow man" did exist yesterday, so I have no idea what you now mean by "the Moscow man" and you have no idea either. Once again you're trying to push on a string because once again you don't understand that there is a difference between the past and the future. we have agreed that, roughly speaking: W-man = H-man > M-man = H-man That is very misleading, the H-man existed in the past but both the W-man and the M-man will exist in the future. It would be more accurate to say one is the proper subset of the other: W-man > H-man M-man > H-man You are the Bruno Marchal of one year ago but he is not you; you are everything he was but you are more than him because you have had experiences in the last year that year ago Bruno knows nothing about. W-man ≠ M-man Of that I certainly agree, > >> >> 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, > Both? If there are two there must be a difference between the H-man and the M-man, but at that stage nobody has seen Moscow or Washington, so what is that difference between the H-man the M-man and the W-man? If there is no difference it will only cause confusion to give them different names. And what in the world does "the M man" even mean if it doesn't mean the man who sees Moscow? > > > I am asking just the H-man, about what he expect > [...] > He expects Santa Claus's workshop ! I don't give a damn what the H-man expects to happen tomorrow, but I do give a damn about who remembers tomorrow being the H-man today. > > > the prediction of the first person experience. > There is not one and only one correct prediction if the future includes use of a first person experience duplicating machine! >> >> 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. After reading the 999th personal pronoun with no referent I have come to the conclusion patronization is necessary. >> >> >> 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 you just complained I was patronizing you, well this is why. Who the hell was that Mr. YOU yesterday that was suposed to see something today?. The prediction can't be about the John Clark who experienced yesterday in Helsinki because that John Clark no longer exists because yesterday is not the same as today and because today nobody is in Helsinki; that fellow will see no city at all today. Is the prediction about all the John Clarks today who remember being john Clark yesterday in Helsinki? If so John Clark will see Moscow and Washington. Or is the prediction about the person who will see Moscow and only Moscow today? If so then "the Moscow man" would have been the correct prediction. Or is the prediction about the person who will see Washington and only Washington today? If so then "the Washington man" would have been the correct prediction. Tell me exactly who Mr. You is, tell me exactly who the prediction is suposed to be about and I can make the correct prediction every single time. And it's not even hard. > > Keep in mind that UDA > ... > ...is babytalk. 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.
