On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 4:06 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/21/2019 11:09 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > These are good questions. That is why the 'closest continuer' theory has > some merit. It gives a reasonable account of how you remain the same person > under the continual changing of the atoms/molecules that make up your body > and brain. In the case of stroke or other head injury, memories may be > seriously disrupted or lost, but your family will still recognise 'you' as > the same Brent as yesterday, showing that bodily continuity is a > significant component in the concepts of personal identity over changes in > body and mind. It is not all down to clear memories of the earlier self. > > Nozick's closest continuer theory was developed in the light of data from, > and experience of, split brain individuals, which are the closest we can > currently come to the idea of personal duplication. The philosophy of > personal identity is complex, and there are not necessarily any clear > winners in the debate. In my opinion, that is a cogent reason for being > sceptical about Bruno's simplistic models. > > Bruce > > > I haven't read Nozick's closest continuer theory. How would it apply to > MWI? > I don't think Nozick considered the question of MWI. He was concerned with personal duplication in one world -- classical duplication, if you will. In MWI, the split is in to disjoint worlds, so it is probably the case that all copies are the same person. That is what the Schroedinger equation would imply, at least. The difference between MWI and 'classical' duplication of the type Bruno discusses comes down to the fact that the MWI 'worlds' are disjoint, and the copies can never meet, even in principle. That is why the analogy between the two that is sometimes drawn, fails. > Is the branch in which you change the least the only one that's the "real > you"? That would account for a lot of mental intransigence...but it > doesn't seem plausible. > I don't think that such questions arise. And anyway, MWI has its own problems, and is unlikely to be a useful interpretation of QM. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ1x2wE4Vz9vHKOf_rPXsWNkBrv0PTt3hQFCADQbbSw9g%40mail.gmail.com.
