The notions of observed/observing, of first vs third,
and all such round robin banter .. all fall down as nonsense
conversation because -no one- has in any real sense
specified the new-functions required to make such
concepts ... a "calculus".
There are conflated criteria involved - as well as a total
lack of mathematical symbology that might otherwise provide
fresh territory and useful new ways to procede.
The tendency of science and mathematics is to get rid of
clutter -- and 'reduce' to basic truths and principles and
operations. The imagined/aspired grail of 'objective reality'.
Unfortunately, reductive operands tend to erase 'distinctions'
that one would otherwise -need- in order to make sense of
'identity/ies' and comparative-perception-sets: .. can V and Z ..
ostensibly 'identical' in construct .. have -different- 'experiences',
or would they superpositionedly co-mingle and 'be one/together'?
General relativity pushed the envelope even -more shut- to distinctions
by identifying transforms, that do allow for alternative experiences
-but- by invoking the principle that no frame of reference is prioritized
over any other.
BUT, just because transforms are possible and therefore Universals and
Invariants and Conservants seem to be underscoring -reliables- that
make the Objectivity grail seem more real and reachable, it is the
collateral concurrent fact which is as equally - or more - important:
MANY 'frames of reference' exist - and - they are founded on
criteria which make their distinctionness profound.
The simplest notion being:
"entities exist embedded in concurrent spaces; nothing is a pure-isolate"
Math and reductive science ignore and dis-consider collateral co-extancy.
Translated: ... no 'identical' entities could or would have perfect identical
indistinguishable experience(s) .. unless ALL internal -and- external parameters
were as-well 'exactly identical' in all aspects, constructs, -and- relations.
Since the only way for such total identicality to exist is such
entities to be perfectly superpositioned .. and that can't happen
because of the Pauli exclusion principle .. no two (or more) 'identities'
could or would be ... a single persona .. laying claim to some
'true identity' versus others/clones being replicant/false identities.
Any clones/replicants -- however "similar/identical" -- would be their OWN
persona and experiant .. having access to wholly unique and personal
'interactions sets', distinct from any other entity.
"Personal Identity" is a de-fault resultant of the structure of the universe.
Integrity - of systemic base/performance/entity-ness is key - for everything.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at