Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

[John Clark]

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 

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

[Bruno Marchal]

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"  

Infinities

[David Nyman]

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.