Yes, good point. You are right, the proof is not completely waterproof yet. It is based on the assumption that each of us is wired in a unique way.
Just as no two fermions can occupy the exact same quantum state or location (the Pauli exclusion principle), no two persons can be in the same location or follow the exact same path in their lives. The "slice of the world" we experience (how Nick used to call it) is different for each of us. Because we are adaptive and learn from experience, the unique paths we take and slices we experience lead to different, unique results. But you are right, even if two path-dependent processes are unlikely to generate the same graph, it is not the same as proving they cannot. I have asked Gemini, and it says the proof can be made more waterproof by arguing the fact that no two persons can be in the same location at the same time is enough to guarantee unique subjective experience. It argues as long as you have two separate people in two separate places, the two first-person views can never become identical. To be 100% identical, every single detail of the inner experiences must match — including where you feel you are in space. Your mind knows where you are: a part of your subjective experience is the feeling: "I am standing over here. The other person knows where it is: a part of its subjective experience includes the feeling: "I am standing over here." The Contradiction: because the two are standing in different spots, the inner experiences must be slightly different. The only way two minds could ever be 100% identical is if they were standing in the exact same space at the exact same time — which means they wouldn't be two different people anymore. They would be the exact same physical person. Gemini mentioned two other ways to make it waterproof, but I liked this one most. These AI models are becoming better in programming, coding and now even in mathematics than we are. It is a little bit frightening. -J. On 2026-09-26 19:20, Jon Zingale wrote: > While I can appreciate the sentiment regarding Abel and Galois, the > impossibility of solving the general quintic by radicals has a > strikingly different form. Its Galois group is not solvable, giving a > precise obstruction to a solution by radicals. In your case, it seems > less like an impossibility that two graphs could be the same and more > like a claim that they are unlikely to be the same. Perhaps two > path-dependent processes are unlikely to generate the same graph, but > that is not the same as proving they cannot. > > My own tendency is to think that a graph generated by material > processes over a finite life may have only finitely many > distinguishable configurations. That leaves open the possibility of > collisions. The birthday problem or hash collisions seem like closer > analogies to me. > > There also seems to be more work to do in showing why *consciousness* > (whatever is meant by the word) should be modeled by an adjacency > graph, and why a theorem about such graphs would resolve the hard > problem. > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... > --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
