On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 at 5:19 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 3:39 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > *Given the definition of the first person*, [...] *By the definition >> of the first person notion* [...] >> > > You act as if you've given a robust definition of "the first person" that > doesn't fall apart into logical contradictions at the first use of a people > copying machine, or even with nothing more than the passage of time. But > you never have. For example, you'll say things like "the first person" > means the conscious being experiencing Helsinki today and then try to > predict what "the first person" will experience tomorrow. But even if we > forget about people copying machines and stay put in Helsinki if that's > your definition of "the first person" then "the first person" will not > exist at all tomorrow because tomorrow nobody will be experiencing Helsinki > today. > > And then you will say the man experiencing Moscow tomorrow could not have > predicted that he would be doing that today, and that's true but only > because today the man experiencing Moscow tomorrow does not exist so he's > unable to do ANYTHING, and that includes making predictions. I've made > this point many times before of course and each time your only defence is > I'm "just playing with words", an odd defence from somebody who claims to > be a logician. > > I don't have the problem that Bruno has because I define "the Helsinki > man" as anyone who remembers being the Helsinki man today, but if Bruno > accepted my definition and followed its logical consequences he'd have to > conclude that the Helsinki man will see 2 cities not one and saw them both > at the exact same time. And this conclusion could be proven by interviewing > both the Moscow man and the Washington man provided that before any copying > was done the Helsinki man himself agreed on the definition of "the Helsinki > man". Yes if you asked the Washington or Moscow man how many cities they > saw they would say only one, but that is the wrong question to ask. The > correct question to ask is "How many cities do you think the Helsinki man > ended up seeing at the same time?". If they are logical and truthful they > will answer "I don't have enough information to answer that but If the > experiment went as planned and my brother really is in that other city then > the Helsinki man ended up seeing 2 cities at exactly the same time". > > *>That is pseudo-religion. You talk like a member of the clergy.* > > > And you talk as if you hadn't repeated verbatim that same schoolboy insult > 6.02*10^23 times before. By your next post I wouldn't be surprised if the > tally reached (6.02*10^23) +1 > > > *Handwaving and insults just confirms that you have decided to not >> understand.* >> > > Speaking of hand waving, nobody can explain who exactly is supposed to > make the prediction, or who or what the prediction is about, and even after > the event is over there is no way even in principle to know if the > prediction turned out to be correct or not. So it's true I am confused I > don't understand, but anybody who thinks they understand gibberish is a > fool. > To me and probably to many others it seems obvious that the Helsinki man can expect to end up either in Moscow or Washington after the duplication. Can you perhaps step outside of the argument and speculate as to why there should be such disagreement, why you imagine some people would think it is obvious when you think it is not only not obvious, but ridiculous? > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
