Comment on If reincarnation exists, suicide could make things much much worse.
rockerface@lemmy.cafe 2 days agoThat’s just Ship of Theseus and can’t be defined.
I’m not made of the same atoms and molecules as I was a decade ago. Some of them might be still around, but it’s mostly completely new particles. Am I still the same person I was a decade ago? If not, how come I can claim ownership of stuff some other guy with the same name bought back then?
I think I’ve read that on the quantum level you actually can’t make the exact same configuration of particles and energy levels in two places at the same time. Trying to create a copy of an object (or, in general, any configuration of particles) would inevitably cause the original to cease to exist. But it’s also mostly a thought experiment, as we can’t do that with more than a few quantum particles at a time.
So far, as best as humanity is able to tell, your memories are you. If we ever get to Star Trek style teleportation, maybe we can define that more rigourously.
bunchberry@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I tend to agree with people like Wittgenstein, Bohm, Engels, and Benoist, that identities are ultimately socially constructed. Aristotle believed identifies are physically real, so that a tree or a ship physically has an identity of “tree” or a “ship.” But then naturally you run into the Ship of Theseus paradox, but many other kinds of paradoxes of the same sort like Water-H2O paradox or the teletransportation paradox, where it becomes ambiguous as to when this physical identity would actually come into existence and when it goes away.
The authors that I cited basically argue that identities are all socially constructed. “Things” don’t actually have physical existence. They are human creations.
One analogy I like to make is that they’re kind of like a trend line on a graph. Technically, the trend line doesn’t add any new information, it just provides a simplified visual representation of the overall data trend of the data, but all that information is already held within the original dataset.
Human brains have limited processing capacity. We cannot hold all of nature in our head at once, so we simplify it down to simplified representations of overall patterns that are relevant and important to us. We might call that rough collection of stuff over there a “tree” or a “ship.” The label “tree” or “ship” represents an overly simplified concept of some relevant properties of interest about that stuff over there, but if you go analyze that stuff very closely, you may find that the label actually is rather ambiguous and doesn’t capture the fully complexities of that stuff.
Indeed, if we could somehow hold all of nature in our heads simultaneously, we would not need to divide the world into “things” at all. We would just fully comprehend how it all interacts as a single woven unified whole, and the introduction of any “thing,” any identity, would just be redundant information.