On 09 Aug 2016, at 19:32, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> a nine years old child get the point
And I might get your point if I had the mentality of a nine year
old child, or of something similar like an ancient Greek.
Feeling superior? That
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> a nine years old child get the point
And I might get your point if I had the mentality of a nine year old
child, or of something similar like an ancient Greek.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On 06 Aug 2016, at 20:35, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> It was the question 2 which does not involve duplication.
Question 2: if I am sure at time t that at time q, q > t, I will be
uncertain of the outcome of some experience x, then I am unce
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> It was the question 2 which does not involve duplication.
> *Question 2*: if I am sure at time t that at time q, q > t, I will be
> uncertain of the outcome of some experience x, then I am uncertain about
> the outcome of that experienc
On 06 Aug 2016, at 03:43, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>>>>Assigning probabilities about what "YOU" will see next
is not ambiguous as long as "YOU" duplicating machine are not around.
>>> So, you are OK that the guy in Helsinki write
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> Assigning probabilities about what "YOU" will see next is not ambiguous
>>> as long as "YOU" duplicating machine are not around.
>>
>>
>> >
>>> >>
>>>
>>> So, you are OK that the guy in Helsinki write P("drinking coffee")
On 04 Aug 2016, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Marchal wrote:
> The question is not about duplication.
OK.
And that part is still OK. Assigning probabilities about what
"YOU" will see next is not ambiguous as long as "YOU" duplicating
machine are not
On 04 Aug 2016, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Marchal wrote:
> The question is not about duplication.
OK.
And that part is still OK. Assigning probabilities about what
"YOU" will see next is not ambiguous as long as "YOU" duplicating
machine are not
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Marchal wrote:
>
> >
>> The question is not about duplication.
>
>
> OK.
>
>
> And that part is still OK. Assigning probabilities about what "YOU" will
see next is not ambiguous as long as "YOU" duplicating machine are not
around.
>
> So, you are OK that
On 03 Aug 2016, at 19:20, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> The question is not about duplication.
OK.
> Do you agree that if today, someone is "sure" that tomorrow
(or any precise time later) he will be uncertain of an outcome of a
certain
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> The question is not about duplication.
OK.
>
> Do you agree that if today, someone is "sure" that tomorrow (or any
> precise time later) he will be uncertain of an outcome of a certain
> experience, then he can say, today, that
On 02 Aug 2016, at 20:03, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> both copies will have a cup of coffee after the
reconstitution. Are you OK that P("experience of drinking coffee") =
1?
Yes, and in this case it doesn't matter if Bruno Marchal says
12 matches
Mail list logo