Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Kilharae t1_j7vkfi0 wrote

Reply to comment by The_Fredrik in What are the chances of me existing in another universe? by letsplay123456789

You have to give a reason though. Just saying so doesn't make it true. You can call a copy of you a copy, but that's just semantics, you could just as easily be described as the copy. I mean, unless you're alluding to the idea of a 'soul' being intrinsically unique or something like that. In which case, it's no longer a scientific argument.

1

The_Fredrik t1_j7vl785 wrote

How do you define “you” if not for your distinct body, your distinct conscious experience?

Do you experience any of these copies? No. Then even assuming they exist they are not you, only copies. Similar yes, but distinct in every way that matters.

If you disagree you have to define clearly what you mean by “you”.

1

Kilharae t1_j7vlthl wrote

I would define you in 4 dimensions, so if you can imagine a 4d blob of yourself as your traverse time throughout your entire existence, as well as how you came to be and how you are disposed of when you die (which worms eat you, where they go afterwards etc.) And I think you can consider that another version of 'you'. Though I grant other, less exacting definitions of 'you' would probably pass muster for other people. But I think it's equally incumbent upon you to have to clearly define what you mean by 'you' to prove that there isn't another one out there. Delving into natural language definition and semantics seems to be the crux of your entire argument. If this becomes a debate over semantical definitions then this debate becomes completely asinine. You're basically saying that even if a copy exists, it's not you because its a copy... okay... maybe you can move yourself to get past your self imposed semantical restriction and ponder the actual argument. Because what you're doing is splitting hairs that don't matter.

1