On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:43 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In Everett's theory it's easy to specify exactly what the bet is about >> because after its all over it's clear who has won, > > > *> In each branch. But that is the case in the WM classical duplication > too.* > No it is not. In the duplicating machine case even after it's all over it's not at all clear who has won because I hear 2 equally loud and equally valid voices demanding that they deserve to receive the title "you". in the Everett case it's clear who won because I hear only one voice that claims to be Mr. You. >> there is only one person around who has inherited the grand title of >> "you”. > > > *> Same in W, and same in M,* > Right, it's the same except there are 2 people around instead of one; or to put it another way, it's about as far from "the same" as you can get. > *> except for irrelevant detail (provably irrelevant with mechanism).* > With mechanism! That's your standard catch phrase you use whenever you get into trouble, but mechanism just says natural phenomena should be explained by reference to matter and the laws of motion, and I don't know what proof you're referring to, I hope it's not the silly one with wall to wall personal pronouns and a personal pronoun duplicating machine. >> and nobody can make a bet if nobody can pin down exactly what the bet is >> suposed to be about. > > > *> I bet one dollar with you that you will* [...] > Since "you" duplicating machines are involved that's all that needs to be said, that's enough information to know NOT to make the bet because John Clark refuses to make a bet when John Clark doesn't know exactly, or even approximately, what the hell the bet is. > *The prediction is on the first person feeling,* > And because a first person feeling duplicating machine is involved there is no such thing as *THE* first person feeling. *> There is nothing as THE first person experience in general. But there is > something like THE first person experience relative to the outcome of the > experience.* > No there is not. The experience had 2 outcomes so it is only meaningful to talk about *A* first person experience. > *> Assuming he bet W, the one in W will won, but Mechanism asks us to > listen to both for evaluating the correct prediction. We want both to be > correct.* > The bet was what one and only one city will you end up seeing, if both are correct then neither won because the bet was just stupid. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0-Zoz0zqk2ApScbr%2BetJL6DgB-zes0SWvCHjoMou-s_Q%40mail.gmail.com.
