On 2/10/2015 11:21 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2 Oct 2015, at 12:39 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Could you provide your answers to questions 1 - 7?
No need because those questions all involve the physical transfer of
information, which is not relevant to purported chance "copies"
outside the light cone. A chance copy anywhere has nothing to do with
me since, to be "me", it would have to be an accurate copy of all my
environment -- probably including all the observable universe. "I" am
not just my brain -- I am a brain-in-a-body-in-a world-in-a-universe.
All components are necessary for personal identity.
When did you come up with the idea that an adequate copy of you must
include a copy of the entire observable universe?
I have always thought this. I am a physicist with a lifelong interest in
astronomy. In particular, the structure of the CMB is a topic of
particular interest. So for any copy in another universe to be "me" in
all detail, that copy must be able to observe exactly the same structure
in the CMB. Now the CMB is the echo of the big bang and is the furthest
object that we can now observe: it defines our "particle horizon",
beyond which no data or interaction is possible. In order to get this
right, the whole universe would have to be the same in every detail.
I think you are continuing to confuse the issues between local copies,
obeying the laws of physics and information transfer, and remote copies
outside our particle horizon. The latter are of absolutely no relevance
to me here-and-now because there is no possibility of information transfer.
Suppose you're told that according whatever criteria you have defined
you were *inadequately* copied last night in your sleep. You believe
you're Bruce Kellett, have his memories, look like him, and everyone
who knew Bruce agrees that he seems to be the same guy. However, the
atoms just weren't put in place using the right procedure, whatever
that might be. What difference does the knowledge of this deficit make
to you? What difference does it make to anyone else?
How does such an implausible scenario differ from the observation that I
sloughed off some flakes of skin during the night, some cells died, and
some new cells grew, nourished by the food I ate for dinner last night?
Minor changes do not disrupt bodily continuity, and all these changes
are subject to the laws of physics, so are completely traceable and
understandable.
Whatever arbitrary scenario you come up with, you cannot find anything
that puts any serious dent in the closest continuer theory of personal
identity, and your idea of "psychological continuity" is easily shown to
be a nonsense for copies outside our light cone.
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
