Re: Infinities

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Sep 2017, at 13:47, David Nyman wrote:


https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-measure-infinities-find-theyre-equal-20170912/


A rare progress on the continuum hypothesis (CH). Shelah is amazingly  
smart. There is that story that he arrived one week to early at a  
congress of logic, and decided to follow a congress on group theory  
instead, and depressed everybody by solving most open problems of that  
congress! His first question was "what is a group?", and people taught  
he was retarted!


Now, this does not necessarily concern us. I think. Even ZF and ZF 
+Choice proves the same theorems in arithmetic. That is probably not  
the case for ZF and ZF + CH, but the comp ontology will not change.  
For the phenomenology, that might change something though, making the  
measure problem more easy or more difficult. We are not yet enough  
advanced on this to decide, i think. model theory and set theory are  
*quite* complex compared to arithmetic!


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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Sep 2017, at 22:37, John Clark wrote:

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.



That contradicts the identity criteria on which we have agreed.



You confuse the past with the future and the fact that the two can  
not be treated the same way.​


Nope.





​> ​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.


The question is that, given you believe that the H-guy survive in both  
place, what do you expect, before pushing on the button,  to live as  
experience when pushing the button.


The answer is simply: I expect to find myself either in M or in W.






​> ​which concerns the first person experience expected.

​I care about the truth not expectations,


Then you don't care about the reasoning, and this shows you don't even  
try to get the point, and we are wasting our time.









and which THE first person experience are you talking about?



All the unicity experience of all copies. I remind you the criteria:  
all copies must confirms the prediction rule in the finite  
duplication, and almost all in the infinite case.


"THE" is used, because all those experience are incompatible from the  
first pov.




THE first person experience of the Helsinki man today? THE first  
person experience of the Helsinki man tomorrow?


Yes, that one. That has been said since the start.



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"?


All of them deserves the title of "THE", giving that all of them feel  
theior corresponding city as unique. Which should be clear if you  
agreed with P(tea) = 1. But you remain mysteriously mute on this. Go  
figure why.






​>>​>>​ ​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.


Absolutely not.




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.


That contradicts the identity criterion. The M-man is the H-man.



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.


That is ridiculous. As I said, the M-man is the H-man, when he is in M.





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.


I don't see that. Please answer P(tea).





 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,


Not when seen as fused.



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