--- On Tue, 2/10/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> 2009/2/11 Jack Mallah <jackmallah.domain.name.hidden>:
> > 2) If the data saved to the disk is only based on A1
> (e.g. discarding any errors that A2 might have made) then
> one could say that A1 is the same person as B, while A2 is
> not. This is causal differentiation.
>
> Yes, but I'm assuming A1 and A2 have identical content.
That actually doesn't matter - causation is defined in terms of counterfactuals. If - then, considering what happens at that moment of saving the data. If x=1 and y=1, and I copy the contents of x to z, that is not the same causal relationship as if I had copied y to z.
> > 3) If I am defined as an observer-moment, then I am
> part of either A1 or A2, not even the whole thing - just my
> current experience. This is the most conservative
> definition and thus may be the least misleading.
>
> This is the way I think of it, at least provisionally.
OK.
> But the point is, I do look at the clock and I do know that I am A, with probability 1, and therefore that I will soon be B with probability 1.
That contradicts what you said above about being an observer-moment. If you are, then some _other_ observer-moments will be in B, not you.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Feb 10 2009 - 22:07:55 PST