I don't know what physicalism of a kind means.

I don't think the mind thing is comparable. There are physical facts that are simple enough to be modelled by an equation - that's the perfect candidate for something being fundamental, and therefore the prefect candidate for something being a "brute fact" as it were.

Minds, on the other hand, seem complex and ever-changing - a human-scale mind is nowhere near a brute fact, and if it interacts with a body, there will be a particular way it interacts with a body. For example, it didn't seem to interface with the toes directly, it interacts with the brain and the brain moves the toes. So "the mind interacts with the body because that's how it is" is many steps removed from a brute fact, in comparison to, say, something like the Schrödinger equation, which because of its relative simplicity is a candidate for being close to a brute fact.

He's been ignoring me since I tortured him for eternity.

In his defense, that's a pretty good reason to ignore someone

he replied to your last reply my brother

the reason I know Michael's answer doesn't work... is related to the recursion you're speaking of, I think, I would phrase it like this:

His logic for 100 relies on the assumption 99 would leave on day 99.

And that in turn relies on the assumption that 98 would leave on day 98.

And you can continue to trace that back, all the way down to:

Logic for 6 relies on 5.
Logic for 5 relies on 4.
Logic for 4 relies on 3.
Logic for 3 relies on 2.

And we KNOW 2 doesn't work if the guru says nothing. Even Michael agrees with that.

If 2 doesn't work, 3 doesn't work. If 3 doesn't work, 4 doesn't work. Trace that all the way back up to 99, then 100.

they are all distinct facts, all the way up — hypericin

Yeah I think that's probably true. I changed my mind

Thinking about it more, I probably am wrong. Maybe it never explodes to infinity

I don't know why, I can't justify it right now, I feel as though it explodes to infinity at some threshold.

Like imagine I know something. Maybe you know I know it, maybe you don't - that doesn't explode.

Now imagine I know something and you know I know it. Now, that also doesn't explode - maybe you know I know, but I don't know you know I know.

Now imagine I know you know I know.

And then imagine you know I know you know I know.

If I know the fact, and you know I know, and I know you know I know, and you know I know that, then... at that point, can't we realistically add as many "I know you know"s as we want and it still remain deductively true, assuming we're perfect logicians and both know each other are perfect logicians?

That's my intuition. I could be wrong.

at two blue, everyone sees a blue

at three blue, everyone knows everyone sees a blue

at four blue, everyone knows everyone knows everyone sees a blue. But, at this stage, you can add as many "everyone knows" as you want, I think. Can't you? At four blue, everyone knows * infinity that everyone knows that everyone sees a blue.

I think

Or maybe at 5?

Idk I'm lost

The elder learns they do not have brown eyes — Philosophim

How do they learn that? The elder could easily have brown eyes, as far as she's concerned.

Again, fun puzzle. :) — Philosophim

I think so too. I wanted to spark some debates.

But, since all 99 don't leave the next day after blue eyes leave, that's because they each brown eyed person realizes 'I must have brown eyes, otherwise they all would have left'. — Philosophim

Why would they have?

I don't think so. I only think blue eyed people can leave. Anybody else can have any possible eye colour, they have no way of knowing

that gives us an easy way to measure bullshit in this thread. See which group is having an easier time defending their position - the group that's having a harder time of it must be right

That's might be taken as a suggestion that there is no interference in the world we experience — boundless

I take it as a suggestion that maybe you experience the consequences of interference constantly, as a matter of course, but they're just... normal. They don't look particularly different from anything else you experience.

We live in a quantum world. Quantum IS normal. Everything normal you experience is the consequence of many quantum interactions. So maybe... interference is just happening all the time, and you experience it all the time, and it's just a normal part of this quantum world we're in.

Note however that our experience does seem about definite outcomes without any interference, i.e. our experience suggests to us that there is no interference, period. Of course, it can be wrong. — boundless

Do you have a solid concept of what the experience of interference would be like? What kinds of experiences would you be expecting, if there were interference?

For instance, MWI supporters generally claim that decoherence is enought to have 'classicality'. But IIRC, interference isn't eliminated. The terms relative to interference become very, very small but not zero — boundless

That doesn't seem like a downside to me. Who says interference at classical scales needs to be anything other than very very small?

After all, we've put relatively large objects in superposition...

But how? *sigh*. — AmadeusD

At some level it's going to be fundamental. There's not going to be a deeper "how" sometimes, eventually it's gonna be "because those are the rules".

Like when one object hits another object and the interaction causes both to change speed - equal and opposite reaction, conservation of momentum - the "how" might not really satisfy you. Are you okay with "because that's just how it works"?

don't start at 100. Start at the minimum possible number of blue eyes.

It's gotta be something like 3 or 4 right?

that's my take, for the "guru says nothing" scenario. I have no reason to think that logic doesn't hold all the way to to 100, or any other number

in his defense, he did learn that the logic he laid out doesn't work for 2 blue eyed people, nor 3. I think he's teachable but just impatient. He keeps trying to skip right to the final conclusion without taking his time building up solid premises

So by day 3, all blue eyed people will leave.

I'm assuming this pattern continues up to day 100 — Philosophim

Yes!

green eyed people will be doing the same calculus, but one day behind blue. — Philosophim

Will they?

So, we've established that IF there were only 1 blue eyed person, he'd leave on the first night, right?

"They are all perfect logicians -- if a conclusion can be logically deduced, they will do it instantly. No one knows the color of their eyes. Every night at midnight, a ferry stops at the island. Any islanders who have figured out the color of their own eyes then leave the island"

So, in the case of 2 blue eyed people, let's get into one of their heads. I'm going to be thinking as the blue-eyed person right now:

I see 1 blue eyed person and 198 brown eyed people and 1 green eyed guru. The guru just said she sees someone with blue eyes.

either (a) the blue eyed person I see is the ONLY blue eyed person,
or (b) my eyes are blue as well, and we both have blue eyes..

If (a) is true, the blue eyed guy I see will leave the first night.

<So I wait the first night, wake up second morning, and look around, and I see that the blue eyed guy is still on the island>

So that means (a) isn't true, and (b) must be true, so I can catch the ferry on the second night.

You won't find it odd if you allow me to show you the rest of the logic. Shall I lay out what happens with 2 blue eyed people?

you won't confirm that I had the rules right at this point. — Philosophim

There were no "rules" about how many people can be on the island. It's an island. However many people you want are on the island. I laid out the scenario and told you how many people of each eye color ARE on the island. That's not a rule, that's just a fact. I don't know why you want it to be a "rule" - seems like something you're just actively confusing yourself about.

There are 100 blue eyed, 100 brown eyed, 1 green eyed. That's not a "rule", that's just the scenario.

Those people can't see their own eye color, so they don't know that's the scenario. A blue eyed person thinks it could be the case that there are 99 blue eyed, 101 brown eyed, 1 green eyed, or maybe his eyes are green instead of brown, or maybe his eyes are amber.

If this answer is something like, "Everyone will turn and stare at the two blue eyed people, I'm going to be angry. That's not a logic puzzle, that's a riddle — Philosophim

so you're inventing nonsense to be confused about, and now you're inventing stuff to be angry at.

Try to use logic and think about it. Let me know if you want the answer to this scenario with 2 blue eyed people.

Obviously if the eye color can vary, then in the case where one person could see everyone else did not have blue eyes, they would know they have blue eyes. — Philosophim

So, now imagine this:

2 blue eyed people, 198 brown eyes. Guru says "I see someone with blue eyes". What do you think happens then?

"people" aren't misundedrstanding anything. Only you. Person, singular. You're getting tripped up on literally nothing. You're inventing stuff to be confused about.

I didn't invent this logic puzzle. This isn't mine. This was invented by a smart guy, and many smart people did the puzzle and liked it. People aren't confused, you're confused.

ah I see, I guess I didn't notice when you switched...

But you think if there's 100 blue and 100 brown, and the guru says nothing, they can leave on the 100th day?

Do you think that if there were only 2 blue eyed people, and the guru didn't say anything, they could leave on the second day?

I'm asking you to imagine something. That's it. Either you can, or you can't. If you cannot imagine any different scenario than the one presented, then you will be incapable of understanding the logic of the solution.

Your logic relies on the statement "everyone sees one blue". That's not true if there's one blue eyed person.

I don't even understand what you're asking.

except for the fact that premise B wouldn't be true in that scenario. Are you just refusing to acknowledge that I said that?

If there wer eonly one blue, it wouldn't be true that everyone sees one blue. Right? Do you understand why that is?

I'm asking you to imagine something. Can you do that?

If we take as a premise that "everyone sees at least one blue", then the counterfactual still works: If there is one blue, he would leave on day one. As you pointed out, that the counterfactual is false is irrelevant. — hypercin

If there were only one blue, then it WOULDN'T be true that everyone sees at least one blue.

I'll work my way up to the answer.

Imagine instead that of the 200 people the guru was speaking to, 199 of them had brown eyes and 1 had blue eyes. The guru says "I see someone with blue eyes". What happens next? Can anybody leave then?

all 200 people.

This puzzle isn't trying to trick you with wording. The most natural interpretation of that bit of the text is that ALL of the islanders are there, and that's how you should interpret it.

"Standing before the islanders" - no need to try to think of clever alternate ways of interpreting it, at face value "the islanders" means all of them.

ps I'm sorry for being rude. You getting confused about what "the islanders" meant or the eye colours just seemed... concocted. But if that was all genuine confusions, then rest easy knowing you got it all right.

A. There are 100 blue eyes, 100 brown eyes, and one green eyed elder.
B. However, the islanders do not know that this is the limit of eye color, and their eye colors could be any color under the rainbow. They also don't know the actual number. So even if they see 100 blue eyed individuals, they're own eye color could be blue or anything else.
C. The elder is speaking to all 200 other people on the island, and we're assuming he sees all 200 people, and says, "I see someone with blue eyes".

The only uncertainty that isn't listed here is how many people the elder saw while speaking to everyone — Philosophim

Your paragraph here shows you were pretty adept at getting over most of your self-inflicted confusions. You're right about the setup.

The elder saw all of them and was looking at everyone when she said it. Not any one person. Even while saying it, she knew and could see 100 blue eyed people.

it genuinely seems like you're trying to be confused