On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> After duplication it would be misleading to call anything "THE Abby". >> Abby-1 is just Abby plus something extra, lets call it M. And Abby-2 is >> just Abby plus something extra that is different, lets call it W. Both are >> Abby but Abby-1 is not Abby-2. > > > *> Yes, we agree on this since day one.* At one time I thought so too but on day one for some strange reason you started babbling about telepathy somehow being involved and you still talk abut it, I had absolutely why you did that 5 years and I have no better idea why you still do it now. You ofter say you agree on a certain point but very soon it becomes clear you don't agree at all. *>But to answer to the step-3 question* The only step-3 question John Clark wants answered is who the hell is Mr. You? *>* > *we must keep in mind that it refers to the first person* In a world that contains first person duplicating machines there is no such thing as *THE* first person. >> >>> I define "Abby" as anyone who remembers being Abbey before the >>> duplication. Do you disagree? >> >> *>>No, we can go with that.* > > > *>Indeed.* This is a very good example of what I was talking about, you say you agree with the above definition of "Abbey" but I would bet money you really don't. >> OK, and since 2 people meet the definition of "Abbey" then there is >> simply no getting around the fact that "Abbey" will see 2 entirely >> different things at exactly the same time. > > > *>That is the 3-1 description* > Wow, that didn't take long! Despite the "indeed" above you are NOT using my definition of "Abbey". I can give a precise logically consistent definition of "Abbey", why can't you? > >** > * but that does not answer the question about the 1-description,* > The "question" was full of proper names with no definitions and personal pronouns with no referent. In short there was no answer because there was no question. > >* * > *as lived by any copies, which obviously cannot have a first person > perception of the two cities at once FROM that first person perspective.* > That depends entirely on who the person in the first person perspective you keep talking about is! I can give a precise logically consistent definition of "Abbey" and I don't have any need to change it on a daily bases, can you do the same thing? If you can't then you quite literally don't know what you're talking about. *>you dismiss the difference between the 1p self (both of which obviously > cannot feel to be in two places at once from their local current > perspective after the duplication) and the 3p perspective.* I'll make you a deal, give me a precise unambiguous definition of the "p" that you're using in the phrases "1p" and "3p" and I'll tell you if I really dismiss the difference between the two or not. 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.
