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

Quentin Anciaux

Reply via email to