On Aug 3, 1:37 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is your theory of identity?
> Would you agree that if a certain object has identical properties,  
> roles, and relations that it is the same?

Sameness is part of the phenomenology of pattern recognition, which is
a property of the subject. The subject's perception determines the
degree to which one complex of phenomena can be distinguished from
another. Ontologically, objectively, it may be that nothing is the
same as anything (possibly even as itself?)

> If some object X in the context of this universe has the set of  
> properties S.  And some object Y in the context of a simulated  
> universe has the same set of properties S.  Then how can X be said to  
> be different from Y?

Because S is not an independent variable. S arises from the relation
between X and the observer Q utilizing antenna A, B, C, cumulatively
entangled through projection-perception coherence P.  S(X) may appear
identical as S(Y) to P(Q) but another observer Q2 with antenna A, B,
D, and F is able to discern a difference, while observer Q3 with
antenna A cannot discern S(X) or S(Y) at all.

Example: Color blind person Q sees two grey circles S(X) and S(Y) as
the same. Color sighted person Q2 sees a red and green circle S(X) and
S(Y) as different, and different in a specific qualitative way which
cannot be expressed or translated *in any way* to Q. Q3 is blind - as
a simulated brain would be to the contents and behaviors that we
attribute to that simulation,

> You could say they exist in different contexts but then the existence  
> of a difference becomes observer relative.  A fire in the simulation  
> only seems different from a fire in this universe because it is being  
> comared from a different context.  Likewise if our universe were a  
> simulation then a fire in this universe would seem different from a  
> fire in the universe hosting the simulation from the perspective of  
> someone outside this universe.

You are assuming that there is no difference between physical presence
and a simulation of a physical presence. I think it's important to
realize that all simulation requires physical resources, and therefore
demands a distinction between what can be simulated and what is itself
a resource. You can simulate the words in a book, but you cannot
simulate the physical book in your hands without it being an actual
book. My view is that awareness is resource dependent as well, but it
is not a simulation, it is the genuine experience of (or through) the
physical resource itself.


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@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to