On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> We agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow, but >> yesterday nobody saw Moscow. > > > > > That contradicts the identity criteria on which we have agreed. > What agreed on identity criteria does that violate? The only identity criteria I remember agreeing to is " the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow . > > The answer is simply: I expect > [...] > Simple indeed if one refuses to consider just what "*I*" means and what the consequences of stepping into a "*I*" duplicating machine would be, but not simple in a good way. > > > to find myself either in M or in W. > And it is so much simpler not to think about just what "myself" means with regards to the future. Not thinking is easier than thinking. >> >> and which *THE* first person experience are you talking about? > > > > > All the unicity experience of all copies. > If its all of them why do you express surprise and claim that all sorts of deep philosophical consequences can be drawn from the fact that one and only one answer is insufficient to describe the fate of several different things. H ow could it be otherwise? > > > I remind you the criteria: all copies must confirms the prediction rule in > the finite duplication, > All the copies were NOT asked the question yesterday back in Helsinki, only Bruno Marchal was asked the question yesterday back in Helsinki; and we know today that Bruno Marchal ended up seeing both cities. Yes yes I know what you will say "you confuse the 1p and the 3p" but you are the one who is confused, it is you who hasn't thought deeply about what a people duplicating machine really means. If the body of Bruno Marchal is duplicated there will still be only one conscious entity if the two of them are in identical environments, it is only when the environments differs, such as being in different cities, that the two start to form different memories and become different conscious beings. But you ask "Which one will become the Moscow man?" and the answer of course is "the one the sees Moscow". Yes that's a trivial answer but then it was a trivial question, and at least it's true just like all tautologies. > > "THE" is used, because all those experience are incompatible from the > first pov. > Which *THE* first pov is "*THE*" incompatible with? >> >> THE first person experience of the Helsinki man today? THE first person >> experience of the Helsinki man tomorrow? > > > > > Yes, that one. That has been said since the start. > That one? Which one? You quoted two. > Which first person experience >> Is Mr. You, which ONE is different from all the others and uniquely >> deserves the noble title of "*THE*"? >> > > > > All of them deserves the title of "THE" > And that is why your notation has the precision of a dogs breakfast. > >> >> 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. > > > > > That contradicts the identity criterion. > The identity criterion , what a joke! If "The Moscow man" no longer means the man who saw Moscow then what does it mean? I don't know why I bother to ask you, on Monday Wednesday and Friday you say it means one thing, on Tuesday Thursday and Saturday you say it means another thing, and on Sunday you're not quite sure. > >> >> 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. > > > > > That is ridiculous. As I said, the M-man is the H-man, when he is in M. > If there is no difference between the Moscow man and the Helsinki man then why did you give them different names? If there is a difference but that difference is NOT that the Moscow man has seen Moscow and Helsinki but the Helsinki man has only seen Helsinki then what in the world is that difference? You've got to get your notation straight and make it precise! > > > Please answer P(tea). > I don't like pee tea. > >>> >> >>> 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, > > > > > Not when seen as fused. > If they are identical then what would be the difference between saying "there are two of them that are fused but both are identical" to just saying "there is only one and nothing is fused"? I can't see how there would be any difference, not from the 3p view *and not from the 1p view either!* So I ask yet again, now that the Moscow man no longer means the man who saw Moscow what does it mean? And is there a Tokyo man fused in there too? How about a Chicago man? > >> >> 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. >> > > > > Both do. > Yes, and so the H-man ended up seeing 2 cities if "the H-man" means remembering being the H-man, and that is the only definition of the phrase that makes any sense to me. If you have a better definition I'd love to hear it. > > > But none is aware of the other in the first person way. > True but irrelevant. > >> >> >> There is not one and only one correct prediction if the future includes >> use of a >> first >> person experience >> duplicating machine! >> > > > > Then digital mechanism is obviously wrong, > Pure unadulterated BULLSHIT. And the proof that it is bullshit is that nobody can say what that one and only one correct answer turned out to be, not even *after* the duplicating experiment is long over. Forget prediction, nobody can even make a postdiction about that, but it's not because of any deep philosophical principle; there is no answer because there was no question. > > Confusion 3p/1p. > Yeah yeah, just keep chanting that mindless mantra to yourself over and over, that will solve all problems and lead you onto the path to enlightenment. > > > "you" is both copies. > Then asking which ONE city you will see would be a very very stupid question. Actually it would be worse than that, it would not be a question at all, it would just be noise made by the mouth . > > but the question is not who you are but who you feel to be. > Bruno Marchal just said " "you" is both copies " so John Clark has no choice but to ask yet again WHO IS MR. YOU? Who is Bruno Marchal asking who they feel , The Helsinki man, the Moscow man or the Washington man? > > > the answer is very simple: > Simple as in stupid. > > > and it is obvious you cannot predict which one. > Which one what?? Nobody can make the prediction because Bruno Marchal can't explain what is suposed to be predicted. Nobody can give an answer if they don't know the question. > > > we are wasting our time. You may be right about that. 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.
