4 ms·
> There is no known process in physics that could give meaning to that identity. I am arguing that we don't know enough about consciousness or about the univer
by Gupie 6y ago
> There is no known process in physics that could give meaning to that identity.
I am arguing that we don't know enough about consciousness or about the universe to claim there is no difference between the original and the copy. So saying "there is no known process in physics" doesn't undermine my position.
Here is one possibility, perhaps a bit silly, but if we are in a simulated universe, not that I think this is likely, but if we are then each person could maybe have a unique hash. A copy then would have a different hash to the original.
Like I said I am not saying we are in a simulation. It is just an example scenario where a perfect copy would not be the same as a move.
- tsimionescu 6y agoSure, there is always the possibility of new physics being discovered. But we know A LOT about the universe, and the fact that we can explain so much about how things work, from the atomic to the galactic level, without any kind of a time-stable identity being necessary does suggest that we shouldn't hold our breath hoping for one to be discovered. Also note, a hash or a mind in a higher-level universe is exactly a transcendent soul: it transcends what we call physical reality (or it transcends 'the simulation' in that story). Just because it's framed in scientific concepts doesn't make it any more or less scientific than Brahman or Christian souls.
- swayvil 6y ago"know a lot" and "ignorance" resemble each other in that there are few unsolved puzzles in view.
- Gupie 6y agoYes, we know a lot, but we don't understand consciousness or even why the universe exists at all. You are probably right, there is unlikely to be a necessity for a "time-stable identity". But who knows, as Lord Kelvin said 1901 “there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now"!