Re: tautology

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue Sep 14 03:40:11 1999

Jacques Mallah wrote:

> The above once again makes no sense. The ASSA does not predict
>any chance of you standing on the moon tomorrow, at least not unless you
>define 'you'. If it is taken to refer to computational continuations of
>your present state, the usual conditional probabilities obviously apply.
>But again, the ASSA does not require any such notion of 'you', and the
>most natural thing would be to say that you only exist at one moment while
>future Russells are really different people.

Do you mean that we are dying at each instant ?
Do you agree we are surviving each such instant ?
But then we're back again to the very question: how could we be (first
person) mortal ?

More precisely, when you say:

>The ASSA does not predict
>any chance of you standing on the moon tomorrow, at least not unless you
>define 'you'.

Sorry but it is hard for me that a question like "will I be on the moon
tomorrow" depends on the fact that I should define "me".

>If it is taken to refer to computational continuations of
>your present state, the usual conditional probabilities obviously apply.

This is just what I take for the RSSA !

>But again, the ASSA does not require any such notion of 'you'

If *YOU* don't exist, just tell me. I will not waste my time to convince
someone who does not exist.

> ...and the
>most natural thing would be to say that you only exist at one moment while
>future Russells are really different people.

I repeat myself: do you mean that we are dying at each instant ?
Do you agree we are surviving each such instant ?
But then we're back again to the very question: how could we be (first
person) mortal ?

Bruno
Received on Tue Sep 14 1999 - 03:40:11 PDT