Le Vendredi 16 Décembre 2005 02:18, vous avez écrit : > This is true, but you can only experience being one person at a time. In fact I'd say "I" can only experience being me ;) If "I" experienced being another person "I" wouldn't be "I". > When > I contemplate what may happen to me tomorrow, I have to consider all the > future versions of me in the multiverse as having equal right to consider > themselves "me". So if half the versions of me tomorrow are expected to > suffer, I am worried, because I might be one of those who suffers. In fact you might not be, It's sure *you* will. > But when > tomorrow comes and I am not suffering, I am relieved - even though those > who are suffering have as much right to consider themselves the > continuation of yesterday's version of "me" as I do. Our psychology creates > an asymmetry between the present and the future when it comes to personal > identity. Some on this list (eg. Lee Corbin) have argued that this is > irrational: copies that are "me" in the future should also be considered > "me" in the present and past. I agree with this statement. > However, our psychological makeup is as it > is: our future encompasses many possibilities, but our present and past is > fixed and single. This is true, but if you encompass a multiverse/everything view then you cannot ask why am I not one of those that or that experience... Why am I still in a rationnal/induction working world ? You're not because if you were, you wouldn't ask this in the first place.
> Stathis Papaioannou Regards, Quentin Anciaux
