Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >>> >> >>> Yesterday the Moscow man we can see today, was the Helsinki man. >> >> >> >> >> No. We agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow, but >> yesterday nobody saw Moscow. > > > > We agreed that the Moscow-man is the Helsinki man, > We agreed that today the Moscow man is the Helsinki man of yesterday BUT the Helsinki man of yesterday is NOT the Moscow man of today because yesterday the Moscow man DID NOT EXIST. You confuse the past with the future and the fact that the two can not be treated the same way. > > > you must not neglect the question asked > I have no choice, I must neglect the question asked because nobody knows what that question is, least of all you. > > > which concerns the first person experience expected. > I care about the truth not expectations, and which THE first person experience are you talking about? THE first person experience of the Helsinki man today? THE first person experience of the Helsinki man tomorrow? THE first person experience of the Moscow man today? THE first person experience of the Moscow man yesterday? THE first person experience of the Washington man today? THE first person experience of the Washington man yesterday? Or the first person experiences today of the people who remember being in Helsinki yesterday. I need precision, sloppy language just won't do. > > You will become two is only the third person description. > Which first person experience Is Mr. You, which ONE is different from all the others and uniquely deserves the noble title of "*THE*"? >> >> but of course he couldn't because yesterday the Moscow man DID NOT EXIST. >>> >>> >>> > >> That makes no sense. Of course he did exist, he was in Helsinki, >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> Now you're changing the meaning of "the Moscow man" again, >> >> > > Not at all. Come on, we have agreed that, > We did but then unannounced you changed what the phrase meant in the middle of your post. 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. 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. Once again you're trying to push on a string because once again you don't understand that there is a difference between the past and the future. we have agreed that, roughly speaking: W-man = H-man > M-man = H-man That is very misleading, the H-man existed in the past but both the W-man and the M-man will exist in the future. It would be more accurate to say one is the proper subset of the other: W-man > H-man M-man > H-man You are the Bruno Marchal of one year ago but he is not you; you are everything he was but you are more than him because you have had experiences in the last year that year ago Bruno knows nothing about. W-man ≠ M-man Of that I certainly agree, > >> >> when you ask the question "What city do you expect to see?" who are you >> asking, the Moscow man or the Washington man? > > > > 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, but at that stage nobody has seen Moscow or Washington, so what is that difference between the H-man the M-man and the W-man? If there is no difference it will only cause confusion to give them different names. And what in the world does "the M man" even mean if it doesn't mean the man who sees Moscow? > > > I am asking just the H-man, about what he expect > [...] > 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. > > > the prediction of the first person experience. > There is not one and only one correct prediction if the future includes use of a first person experience duplicating machine! >> >> This is some complicated stuff we have no experience in so intuition is >> of little help, thus words can't be used casually, precision of meaning is >> essential. > > > Don't patronize please. After reading the 999th personal pronoun with no referent I have come to the conclusion patronization is necessary. >> >> >> you can't specify exactly what is suposed to be predicted. > > > > > I don't understand that remark at all. You know you will push on a button, > open a door and see a city, which will be either W or M, > And you just complained I was patronizing you, well this is why. Who the hell was that Mr. YOU yesterday that was suposed to see something today?. The prediction can't be about the John Clark who experienced yesterday in Helsinki because that John Clark no longer exists be
Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")
On 21 Sep 2017, at 21:04, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >Yesterday the Moscow man we can see today, was the Helsinki man. No. We agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow, but yesterday nobody saw Moscow. We agreed that the Moscow-man is the Helsinki man, like we agree that the Washington-man is also the Helsinki-man. they are the same person, even if now they live in separate location. So yesterday I would have said "I predict that I the Helsinki man will become two and become the Moscow man and the Washington man, but as of today neither of those gentleman have been born yet because as of today nobody has seen Moscow or Washington". You've got to keep your terms straight, it's important. But you must not neglect the question asked which concerns the first person experience expected. You will become two is only the third person description. It is correct, but it miss the mention that those two will live the experience of being in one city, not of being in two city. So if you agree with P(tea) = 1, you agree with P(I see only one city) = 1, too. So the H-guy can expect with P = 1 to feel in ONE city after pushing the button. And obviously the H)guy cannot say which one, as he knows that this will be false for at least one copy (and we want all the copies verifying the predictions). >> but of course he couldn't because yesterday the Moscow man DID NOT EXIST. > That makes no sense. Of course he did exist, he was in Helsinki, Now you're changing the meaning of "the Moscow man" again, Not at all. Come on, we have agreed that, roughly speaking: W-man = H-man M-man = H-man W-man ≠ M-man but OK if that's the new meaning then the Washington man existed in Helsinki too. So when you ask the question "What city do you expect to see?" who are you asking, the Moscow man or the Washington man? At that moment, you can consider them as fused. The H-man is both of them, and that stage there is no problem of consistency, as the M and W man have not yet differentiated. There is just no problem, because I am asking just the H-man, about what he expect to live, given that he believes in computationalism and the respect of the protocol. If you want people to understand what you're saying you've got to get your terms straight and stop changing then in mid sentence! >>It was the very act of seeing Moscow that turned the Helsinki man into the Moscow man, > Without in any way killing the Helsinki man, That depends on what "the Helsinki man" means, if it means remembering being in Helsinki yesterday them the Helsinki man is alive and well today and is in two places, if it means the man currently experiencing Helsinki then the Helsinki man is dead as a doornail. Just read any posts in the past? We have agreed on all this. The trouble is not only do your personal pronouns have no referent but even the proper nouns have foggy meaning that change constantly. I told you that the problem is equivalent for proper names and pronouns. The solution is the same. just keep track all the times of the difference between the 3p and 1p discourses, and take this into account for the prediction of the first person experience. This is some complicated stuff we have no experience in so intuition is of little help, thus words can't be used casually, precision of meaning is essential. Don't patronize please. Keep in mind that UDA is not just what I found 50 years ago, it was also used only to motivate the precise definition given in arithmetic. Self-reference is my expertize in logic, and given that the "measure" problem concerns the domain of the first person experience, that has been what took me many years, until I realize that incompleteness makes the antique definition of Theaetetus working again in arithmetical self-reference. Now, here you make the step 3 looking difficult for basically nothing, as the 1p and 3p definition used the simplest part of digital mechanism: the personal memory. That is why in France they insisted that I put the UDA as the main argument, actually, because kids understands this easily indeed. > What you can't predict is the specific location And that is because you can't specify exactly what is suposed to be predicted. I don't understand that remark at all. You know you will push on a button, open a door and see a city, which will be either W or M, and the question is how you evaluate the chance to be in W, say. P(W) = ? (Where, to repeat and avoid any ambiguity, "W" and "M" refer not to a city, but to the first person experience of opening the door and seeing a city"). >> John Clark canneither agree nor disagree with that until Bruno Marchal explains if "you" is only the guy currently in Helsinki today or if "you" includes guys who tomorro
Infinities
https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-measure-infinities-find-theyre-equal-20170912/ -- 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.