Leibniz: When God calculates, the world is made
Leibniz' note on his Dialogs: When God calculates and thinks things through, the world is made. Cum Deus calculat et cogitationem exercet, mundus fit. I have found it in M. Heller, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe. Evgenii -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
@ Pierz >> If he refuses to > acknowledge MWI as a valid account due to his pronoun concerns, then > fine, maybe he should publish a refutation of Everett to that > effect. but isn't John's point that pro-nouns do not cause much trouble when duplicates end up in separate universes? Thats a fair point right? So, Im not sure he feels his concerns are relevent to Everett. Ive never seen Bruno respond adequately to that point. All this 'troll' baiting reminds me of when I first came into contact with step 3. Bruno and a bunch of others were mocking John for saying that 1 person could experience being in moscow and washington at the same time. I thought it was odd that someone like John would think that, so I looked up what he had actually written and lo and behold Bruno and co. were just lying. lying out of their lazy fat academic arses! lol. He'ld said nothing of the sort. So you have to be careful to read what John says rather than rely what Bruno says John says. The two can be very different. Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 17:59:25 -0700 From: pier...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:06:31 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Aug 2015, at 02:39, Pierz wrote: > Mein Gott, this argument reminds me of the fire in Siberia that > started burning in the Holocene and is still going. Why do you keep > taking the troll bait Bruno? Because it is not under my back, and I want to make clear that the person who have a problem with this are troll. > JC is a physicist so I presume he understands Everett. Ergo, he > understands, in principle, first person indeterminacy. See the attempt by Quentin and others to make John C realizing this, but he answers by the same hand-waving method, confirming (that's the goal of answering) that he is a troll. > He just loves tormenting you. Possible. But then why? Jealousy? Inability to say "I was wrong"? I try to understand such "bad faith" as this might make the difference between coming back to the scientific attitude in theology next century or next millennium. My goal is harm reduction, and the sooner we can be serious on this, the less useless suffering for humans. > You can ask the simple question: if the quantum state evolves > deterministically where does randomness come from according to MWI? > I'd like to hear JC's answer to that. If he says it's due to > multiple versions of the observer ending up in different branches of > the multiverse, he's shown he understands. If he refuses to > acknowledge MWI as a valid account due to his pronoun concerns, then > fine, maybe he should publish a refutation of Everett to that > effect. I'm sure the physics world would be fascinated to learn of > its error. John Clark has given already both answers, and has oscillate between accepting the FPI o-and rejecting it. When he accepts it, he insist it is trivial and does not deserve the Nobel Prize (like if that was on the table!), but fail to explain why he still does not address the next step in the reasoning. I think that to avoid this, he knows prefer to stick on his 1p3p-difference abstraction of. Keep in mind that I got the 1p-indeterminacy more than 40 years ago, and that I have never had any problem in explaining it to scientist. But then some scientist decided that it was philosophy, and hired some (non-analytical) philosopher who pretended that the FPI does not exist. As I have never been able to met them, I felt frustated (for 40 years) I see, I think. JC is a proxy for the guy who robbed you of your prize, and you're still hoping for a victory of logic over malice. You're still trying to deal with your hurt. In Australia we have a term for what John is doing; it's considered a national pastime: cutting down the tall poppies. Whenever someone sticks their head up above the crowd with a claim to greatness or originality, somebody will try to lop their head off out of jealousy and small-mindedness. John tries to act as if it's all about the logic, but his nastiness and sarcasm give away the underlying emotional motivations of a thwarted embittered person who hasn't achieved the recognition he craves and so feels compelled to cut down anyone who dares to stand out with a claim for attention. so I still try to see where is the problem: and JC helps a lot in showing that the problem is simply its inability, or unwillingness, to take the 1p/3p difference into account in the question and verification. But he has show to grasp the difference, so it is probably just unwillingness. Then the question remains: why such unwillingness? I'm afraid it is just jealousy or something of that type. each post by JC confirms that, and it *might* someday help people to understand how obscurantist people can be on this subject. Then JC, like
Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:06:31 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 06 Aug 2015, at 02:39, Pierz wrote: > > > Mein Gott, this argument reminds me of the fire in Siberia that > > started burning in the Holocene and is still going. Why do you keep > > taking the troll bait Bruno? > > Because it is not under my back, and I want to make clear that the > person who have a problem with this are troll. > > > > > JC is a physicist so I presume he understands Everett. Ergo, he > > understands, in principle, first person indeterminacy. > > See the attempt by Quentin and others to make John C realizing this, > but he answers by the same hand-waving method, confirming (that's the > goal of answering) that he is a troll. > > > > > > > He just loves tormenting you. > > Possible. But then why? Jealousy? Inability to say "I was wrong"? > > I try to understand such "bad faith" as this might make the difference > between coming back to the scientific attitude in theology next > century or next millennium. My goal is harm reduction, and the sooner > we can be serious on this, the less useless suffering for humans. > > > > > You can ask the simple question: if the quantum state evolves > > deterministically where does randomness come from according to MWI? > > I'd like to hear JC's answer to that. If he says it's due to > > multiple versions of the observer ending up in different branches of > > the multiverse, he's shown he understands. If he refuses to > > acknowledge MWI as a valid account due to his pronoun concerns, then > > fine, maybe he should publish a refutation of Everett to that > > effect. I'm sure the physics world would be fascinated to learn of > > its error. > > John Clark has given already both answers, and has oscillate between > accepting the FPI o-and rejecting it. When he accepts it, he insist it > is trivial and does not deserve the Nobel Prize (like if that was on > the table!), but fail to explain why he still does not address the > next step in the reasoning. I think that to avoid this, he knows > prefer to stick on his 1p3p-difference abstraction of. > > Keep in mind that I got the 1p-indeterminacy more than 40 years ago, > and that I have never had any problem in explaining it to scientist. > But then some scientist decided that it was philosophy, and hired some > (non-analytical) philosopher who pretended that the FPI does not > exist. As I have never been able to met them, I felt frustated (for 40 > years) I see, I think. JC is a proxy for the guy who robbed you of your prize, and you're still hoping for a victory of logic over malice. You're still trying to deal with your hurt. In Australia we have a term for what John is doing; it's considered a national pastime: cutting down the tall poppies. Whenever someone sticks their head up above the crowd with a claim to greatness or originality, somebody will try to lop their head off out of jealousy and small-mindedness. John tries to act as if it's all about the logic, but his nastiness and sarcasm give away the underlying emotional motivations of a thwarted embittered person who hasn't achieved the recognition he craves and so feels compelled to cut down anyone who dares to stand out with a claim for attention. > so I still try to see where is the problem: and JC helps a lot > in showing that the problem is simply its inability, or unwillingness, > to take the 1p/3p difference into account in the question and > verification. But he has show to grasp the difference, so it is > probably just unwillingness. > Then the question remains: why such unwillingness? I'm afraid it is > just jealousy or something of that type. each post by JC confirms > that, and it *might* someday help people to understand how > obscurantist people can be on this subject. > Then JC, like Jean-Paul Delahaye, makes me think that maybe the FPI > does deserve the Nobel Prize after all. If it is that subtle to grasp > for grown up, it might be worth to make clearer. After all, all the > rest of the work exploit that FPI. Tegmark and Schmidhuber missed it, > as Tegmark confirms by "rediscovering it" in his book (as Jason Resch > quoted some times ago). > > So, the FPI is certainly very simple, but the 1p/3p difference is not > that simple for some physicists and philosophers (sic), as the way JC > and some part of the academical world have illustrated since long. > > Another problem, is that his post confused people, so we have to > answer them for possible new bees. > > Yes. The western scientific mindset has become so conditioned to think only in terms of 3p, that it is difficult for some people to think any other way. These are the same people who fail to grasp the "hard problem". > Now, anyone can ask more interesting question, or discuss other > points... It is not difficult to filter the thread if an
Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 11:39:47 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Pierz > > wrote: > > >> > >> if the quantum state evolves deterministically > > > The wave function most certainly evolves deterministically but that's > not important because the wave function is not observable, I want to know > if the actual physical state evolves deterministically. The answer is far > from obvious. If everything that can happen does happen then did anything > determine one particular branch of the multiverse? > My point isn't that MWI is true. My point is you understand it and how it leads to the appearance of indeterminacy in a completely determined system. Indeterminacy is a 1-p illusion, to use Bruno's detested terminology. I don't understand your last sentence/question. The laws of the physics determined every branch, and none of them are privileged in any way. > > > >> > >> where does randomness come from according to MWI? I'd like to hear JC's >> answer to that. If he says it's due to multiple versions of the observer >> ending up in different branches of the multiverse, he's shown he >> understands. > > > Of course I understands that! > I know you do - because who could fail to understand it? > If the multiverse really exists then that explains quantum indeterminacy, > but Bruno claims he has found a new sort of indeterminacy independent of > both the quantum type and also of the Godel/Turing type and I don't think > he has. > To my mind, the logic is completely isomorphic with MWI. i.e., the duplication or branching of an observer leads to the appearance of randomness from the perspective of that observer, even though the objective situation contains no indeterminacy. If Bruno is claiming there is some striking originality about his idea of FPI then I'd point to Everett and say, that guy thought of it first. Obviously Bruno's argument hypothesises this first-person indeterminacy occurring in a context of computationally defined observers (whether in a physical machine, a duplication experiment, or pure mathematics) rather than the multiverse, but that context is irrelevant to the question of the validity of the logic of FPI, which is entirely abstractable from the context in which it occurs. If you can see how indeterminacy works *logically* in MWI, you have agreed with the *logic* of step 3. If that is not the case, you need to explain how the situations are logically different, because AFAICT the only difference between the two cases is the nature of the duplicator. Perhaps you can explain why it matters whether the duplicator is the multiverse or a teleportation device? > I think he's just rehashing the sort indeterminacy first discovered about > 90 years ago. > > OK, so Bruno is an upstart! A pompous ass! An incompetent fewl! And what's worse, these dorks on the Everything List treat his damnfool ideas with respect, stroke his bloated ego and foster his pretensions to genius! Let's face it, that's what gets your goat and why you will never in a million years admit that step 3 is valid even though you admit to the validity of Everett's identical logic. > > >> Why do you keep taking the troll bait Bruno? > > > Clearly a troll, Bruno and you are so brilliant nobody could really > disagree, they can only pretend to disagree for some obscure but > undoubtedly sinister reason. > The motivations of trolls are not obscure and yours are no exception. > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
You can just define personal identity as a single observer moment, which includes any memories of the outcomes of the duplication experiments, so the string of the "W"'s and "M"'should be included in the definition of "you". You can also invent a machine that creates a consciousness that has false memories of having been Bruno and also John Clark in the past, but such that these memories are inconsistent with each other. E.g. it has the memory of having been at Brussels, but also in New York at the same time. But there is not problem here if you just take the formal description of any conscious being as defining its personal identity. Saibal On 06-08-2015 11:27, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Aug 2015, at 02:37, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> But there is no genuine reason to prefer one over the other. > Thta's the point, and that is why they both get one bit of information, No new information has been received. Long before the duplication button was pressed John Clark already knew that one John Clark would receive a W bit and one John Clark would get a M bit. No new information was generated. You go ou of your body to get the 3-1 view, but forget that from the copies perspective, it does look like they are in only one place, and looking at which one, they do get 1 bit of information. So, what you say is that in the 3-view, there is no new information. Indeed the 3-view is the protocol itself. But the question was about the expected 1p experience, and both confirm that they got one bit of information. The result of "pushing on the button and deciding which cities is behind" is always either W or M, and never both. > You [ Chris Peck ] seem to just persist ignoring the question like John Clark. Ignore isn't the right word, there is no question to ignore; there is just a sequence of personal pronouns, none of which has a referent but all are liberally spiced with peepee and with a question mark at the very end. A question needs more than a question mark. The question is what do you expect to live, and every one grasp, without any trouble, that it can only be W, or M, and never both. "W & M" is never written in any copies' diary, except when they describe the 3-1 view that they *imagine* correct instead of the 1p-experience that they directly live (which was what the question is all about). Sorry John, but your hand-waving does not succeed in hiding that you avoid the question asked. We have agreed on all definitions, but you keep talking like if someone can distinguish, directly from its subjective experience, the difference between a simple teleportation and a duplication. So you need some magic to get your point meaningful. But mechanism does not allow it. Without magic, both copies see only one city, and cannot decide if there is or not a doppelganger in the other city. Bruno 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list [1]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2]. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ [3] -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list [1]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2]. Links: -- [1] http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list [2] https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3] http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> >>> the nuance is not in the name or in the pronouns, but in the 1p/3p >>> difference, or in the 1-1p/3-1p difference. >> >> >> >> In a world with people duplicating machines what exactly is the >> difference between >> *THE* >> 1p >> and the >> 3p difference >> and >> >> the difference between >> *THE* >> 1-1p >> and the >> 3- >> 1 >> p difference >> ? And whose "1p" is it anyway? >> > > > > > It is the difference between what is written in a diary of a person, > > and what an outsider can describe > If after the duplication Bruno Marchal can point to the one and only person that unambiguously wrote all that stuff in that diary then it will have been proven that there really is such a thing as **THE** 1P, if not then Bruno Marchal is talking gibberish. > >> > Expects? That depends entirely on who the Helsinki guy is, as > interminable posts on this subject have conclusively shown John Clark and > Bruno Marchal expect very different things. > > > > But we do agree on who the guy is. He is the guy who remember Helsinki. > But today is thursday so we don't agree. >> >> But why is this even relevant? > > > > You would read step 4, 5, ... you would have a pretty clear idea why it is > relevant > If step 4 is built on the foundations of step 3 then it would be pointless to read step 4 until the blunders in step 3 are repaired, and if it is not built on those foundations then it was unnecessary and foolish to include step 3 at all in your "proof". > >> >> The Helsinki guy will have whatever future subjective experience he has > > > > > The point is that there are more than one which is available. > So you agree the Helsinki guy will have a future subjective experience of Moscow and you agree the Helsinki guy will have a future subjective experience of Washington but insist the Helsinki guy will not experience Moscow and Washington in the future. Are you sure you're a logician? > >> and his expectations, correct or incorrect, have absolutely positively >> *NOTHING >> *to do with it. > > > ? > Which word didn't you understand? > > >>> >> >>> >>> w >>> >>> e have agreed on: both the M and W men are the same person as the H-man >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes the Moscow man and the Washington man are the Helsinki man, but it's >> important to remember that >> t >> he Washington man >> is *NOT* the Moscow man; and that's why personal identity can only be >> traced from the past to the present, never from the present to the future. >> > > > > Your own copies in W and M refute this immediately. > Bullshit. W says I remember seeing Washington one minute ago, and M says I remember seeing Moscow one minute ago, so W is *NOT* M . But both W and M say I remember seeing Helsinki one hour ago so both W and M *are* H. > > >> Until a city was spotted John Clark would know that John Clark had NOT >> been duplicated, although John Clark's body may or may not have been. > > > > So you say that at a time he might know what happened. Pure nonsense. > Until different outside stimulation is received , like seeing a different city , both brains would be running identical programs in parallel , so John Clark would have only one conscious experience regardless of how many identical brains were involved. > > He should just never expect experiencing being in two cities, and the > point is that the guy cannot see the difference, unless telepathy Telepathy?? Oh for christ sake! 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On 06 Aug 2015, at 02:39, Pierz wrote: Mein Gott, this argument reminds me of the fire in Siberia that started burning in the Holocene and is still going. Why do you keep taking the troll bait Bruno? Because it is not under my back, and I want to make clear that the person who have a problem with this are troll. JC is a physicist so I presume he understands Everett. Ergo, he understands, in principle, first person indeterminacy. See the attempt by Quentin and others to make John C realizing this, but he answers by the same hand-waving method, confirming (that's the goal of answering) that he is a troll. He just loves tormenting you. Possible. But then why? Jealousy? Inability to say "I was wrong"? I try to understand such "bad faith" as this might make the difference between coming back to the scientific attitude in theology next century or next millennium. My goal is harm reduction, and the sooner we can be serious on this, the less useless suffering for humans. You can ask the simple question: if the quantum state evolves deterministically where does randomness come from according to MWI? I'd like to hear JC's answer to that. If he says it's due to multiple versions of the observer ending up in different branches of the multiverse, he's shown he understands. If he refuses to acknowledge MWI as a valid account due to his pronoun concerns, then fine, maybe he should publish a refutation of Everett to that effect. I'm sure the physics world would be fascinated to learn of its error. John Clark has given already both answers, and has oscillate between accepting the FPI o-and rejecting it. When he accepts it, he insist it is trivial and does not deserve the Nobel Prize (like if that was on the table!), but fail to explain why he still does not address the next step in the reasoning. I think that to avoid this, he knows prefer to stick on his 1p3p-difference abstraction of. Keep in mind that I got the 1p-indeterminacy more than 40 years ago, and that I have never had any problem in explaining it to scientist. But then some scientist decided that it was philosophy, and hired some (non-analytical) philosopher who pretended that the FPI does not exist. As I have never been able to met them, I felt frustated (for 40 years) so I still try to see where is the problem: and JC helps a lot in showing that the problem is simply its inability, or unwillingness, to take the 1p/3p difference into account in the question and verification. But he has show to grasp the difference, so it is probably just unwillingness. Then the question remains: why such unwillingness? I'm afraid it is just jealousy or something of that type. each post by JC confirms that, and it *might* someday help people to understand how obscurantist people can be on this subject. Then JC, like Jean-Paul Delahaye, makes me think that maybe the FPI does deserve the Nobel Prize after all. If it is that subtle to grasp for grown up, it might be worth to make clearer. After all, all the rest of the work exploit that FPI. Tegmark and Schmidhuber missed it, as Tegmark confirms by "rediscovering it" in his book (as Jason Resch quoted some times ago). So, the FPI is certainly very simple, but the 1p/3p difference is not that simple for some physicists and philosophers (sic), as the way JC and some part of the academical world have illustrated since long. Another problem, is that his post confused people, so we have to answer them for possible new bees. Now, anyone can ask more interesting question, or discuss other points... It is not difficult to filter the thread if annoyed by the admittedly boring repetition of Clarks last attempt to ridicule the notion. It is "holiday". The list is quite, so take this as a little snack, like an attempt to understand the psychology of trolls and harassers, or just skip those posts, and enjoy the sun and the beach :) Bruno -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On 06 Aug 2015, at 02:37, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> But there is no genuine reason to prefer one over the other. > Thta's the point, and that is why they both get one bit of information, No new information has been received. Long before the duplication button was pressed John Clark already knew that one John Clark would receive a W bit and one John Clark would get a M bit. No new information was generated. You go ou of your body to get the 3-1 view, but forget that from the copies perspective, it does look like they are in only one place, and looking at which one, they do get 1 bit of information. So, what you say is that in the 3-view, there is no new information. Indeed the 3-view is the protocol itself. But the question was about the expected 1p experience, and both confirm that they got one bit of information. The result of "pushing on the button and deciding which cities is behind" is always either W or M, and never both. > You [Chris Peck] seem to just persist ignoring the question like John Clark. Ignore isn't the right word, there is no question to ignore; there is just a sequence of personal pronouns, none of which has a referent but all are liberally spiced with peepee and with a question mark at the very end. A question needs more than a question mark. The question is what do you expect to live, and every one grasp, without any trouble, that it can only be W, or M, and never both. "W & M" is never written in any copies' diary, except when they describe the 3-1 view that they *imagine* correct instead of the 1p-experience that they directly live (which was what the question is all about). Sorry John, but your hand-waving does not succeed in hiding that you avoid the question asked. We have agreed on all definitions, but you keep talking like if someone can distinguish, directly from its subjective experience, the difference between a simple teleportation and a duplication. So you need some magic to get your point meaningful. But mechanism does not allow it. Without magic, both copies see only one city, and cannot decide if there is or not a doppelganger in the other city. Bruno 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On 06 Aug 2015, at 00:57, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Since Bruno is clear about all this Bruno should have no difficulty in complying to the request of substituting "John Clark" for the personal pronoun "you". > We did this already, but you came up with non sense again. More than one person did this. It changes nothing, as the nuance is not in the name or in the pronouns, but in the 1p/3p difference, or in the 1-1p/3-1p difference. In a world with people duplicating machines what exactly is the difference between THE1p and the 3p difference and the difference between THE 1-1p and the 3- 1p difference? And whose "1p" is it anyway? It is the difference between what is written in a diary of a person, and what an outsider can describe as exclusive content of a collection of diaries. It is the difference , in this case, between the semantic of "I open the door and saw M (resp W) and the list "I open the door and saw M" + "I opened the door and saw M". In this case the difference is the difference between "and" and "or". > you kept confusing the 1p and the 3p, In short, YCT1PAT3P. And it's true, John Clark is very confused about which 1p Bruno Marchal is talking about, although probably not as confused as Bruno Marchal. > as comp explains that NO copies at all will *live* all experiences. John Clark is profoundly uninterested in "comp" and does not believe that "comp" can explain anything at all. Computationalism is used only to formulate the problem, to get the shape of the solution (the reversal), and to motivate for the technical definitions and the mathematical solution (the Arithmetical UDA, alias the machine's interview, where the "pronouns" are defined with the technic exposed in Smullyan's Forever Undecided, notably. >> Well now that's all very nice but John Clark still has one question, there are two first person experiences, which one is Bruno talking about? > The one the Helsinki guy expect to live subjectively, Expects? That depends entirely on who the Helsinki guy is, as interminable posts on this subject have conclusively shown John Clark and Bruno Marchal expect very different things. But we do agree on who the guy is. He is the guy who remember Helsinki. But why is this even relevant? You would read step 4, 5, ... you would have a pretty clear idea why it is relevant (of course). The Helsinki guy will have whatever future subjective experience he has The point is that there are more than one which is available. and his expectations, correct or incorrect, have absolutely positively NOTHING to do with it. ? That's why trying to define personal identity by looking to the future rather than the past is just nuts. Yes, but that has not been done. > we have agreed that both the Moscow man and the Washington man is the Helsinki man. What day is itlets see... it's Wednesday, so yes today we agree on that. Tomorrow we won't. You should try to not show so much clearly that you are a troll, as I will lose credits just by answering such remark. > we have agreed on: both the M and W men are the same person as the H-man Yes the Moscow man and the Washington man are the Helsinki man, but it's important to remember that the Washington man is NOT the Moscow man; and that's why personal identity can only be traced from the past to the present, never from the present to the future. Your own copies in W and M refute this immediately. You confirms (if that was necessary) that you never complete the thought experience. You don't interview the copies. You don't put your shoes in their shoes. > which explains why the H-man can only be uncertain if he (the 1p, well defined in H) will live the W or the M experience. The only uncertainty is who "he" is. We have agreed that he is the guy remembering pushing the button. We have agreed that he will find himself in bioth city, and we have agreed that in both cities both live an experience logically incompatible with their doppelganger experience, and thus live W or M (even W xor M). If "he" is the guy experiencing Helsinki today then "he" will experience NEITHER Washington nor Moscow tomorrow. However if "he" is the guy who remembers experiencing Helsinki today (or if "he" is Bruno Marchal) then "he" will experience Washington AND Moscow tomorrow. That will never happen. Nobody will experience W and M tomorrow or any day. Both experience will occur, but a couple of incompatible experience is NOT an experience. It is only two experience of different person, who happen to be both the H-guy. I think you have stabilized on the first/third person pov. > In Helsinki, we decide with a coin between the alternative described just below, but we don't let you know the res
