Me - Following a time-space pathline in a multiverse?
- 0 Times Infinity
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: September 1st, 2022, 10:50 pm
Me - Following a time-space pathline in a multiverse?
I am new here. Sorry in this sense if I should have posted my question in a wrong category.
My problem:
How can I be me if a multiverse should exist?
It appears very clear to me that I am me and the environment is my environment etc. There is nothing like I am twice. Or multiple.
For me this shows clearly: I am unique.
Do you believe in multiverses and if so, how does this work with being unique?
Please let me know how you try to combine this.
Best wishes,
0
- PuerAzaelis
- Premium Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: February 25th, 2017, 6:47 pm
Re: Me - Following a time-space pathline in a multiverse?
Nevertheless, in this universe, I am unique.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7991
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Me - Following a time-space pathline in a multiverse?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8388
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Me - Following a time-space pathline in a multiverse?
I don't think the two things clash at all. If your uniqueness spans all universes instead of just one, then you're simply referring to a bigger stage, upon which you are still, perhaps, unique. I see no problem here.0 Times Infinity wrote: ↑September 1st, 2022, 11:24 pm Do you believe in multiverses and if so, how does this work with being unique?
"Who cares, wins"
- Halc
- Posts: 405
- Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm
Re: Me - Following a time-space pathline in a multiverse?
You're you. Those others are not, at least not by most definitions of what it means to be 'you'. No problem so far.0 Times Infinity wrote: ↑September 1st, 2022, 11:24 pm My problem:
How can I be me if a multiverse should exist?
If it is clear to you that there's nothing 'like' you, then you clearly live in a sufficiently small definition of a universe where near-duplicates are not possible. This sort of contradicts a existing multiverse view where near-identical copies are statistically inevitable.There is nothing like I am twice. Or multiple. For me this shows clearly: I am unique.
One can solve this simply by denying the existence of those other places. That's what I do, but for other reasons than discomfort with the thought of nearly identical versions of me being 'out there'. I simply have an empirical definition of existence: Only what is measured exists. I don't measure a copy of me, so the copy doesn't exist.
I try not to restrict myself down to what one would qualify as 'beliefs'. I understand MWI theory for instance (which is what I suspect you're talking about), but it uses a different definition of existence than I do. So it's not that I don't believe in it, I just define things differently.Do you believe in multiverses and if so, how does this work with being unique?
Likewise, I suspect (again, not to the point of belief) that cause must precede effect and that causal effects cannot travel faster than light. That can be show to be incompatible with the meaningful existence of things too distant to measure. So despite the universe supposedly not being bounded in size, there's not another chance copy of me out there (despite the fact that the distance to it has been computed).
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023