tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post114294575357787630..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Individuals, Portraits, and CounterpartsRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1143113312150777702006-03-23T06:28:00.000-05:002006-03-23T06:28:00.000-05:00His book (Fabric of Reality?) is quite good for no...His book (Fabric of Reality?) is quite good for non-technical types. His website, http://www.qubit.org/people/david/, has a few papers available for download depending on your interest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1143058907171509322006-03-22T15:21:00.000-05:002006-03-22T15:21:00.000-05:00have you got a specific article in mind?have you got a specific article in mind?Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1143027045638759512006-03-22T06:30:00.000-05:002006-03-22T06:30:00.000-05:00I suggest you read David Deutsch's papers and book...I suggest you read David Deutsch's papers and books for actual physical implications.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1142975727090029232006-03-21T16:15:00.000-05:002006-03-21T16:15:00.000-05:00I think there is a regard in which very similar th...I think there is a regard in which very similar things are actually the same , or at least intimately linked - (I am in part thinking of quantum physics here).<BR/><BR/>I also see alternate worlds as fairly determinist - i.e. somthing happens that splits that time line from you and then there after it is not you. I presume (depending on the mechanism) that split is not "I decided to campaign in florida" or whatever, it is some much earlier flick of an photon. (I think...)<BR/><BR/>One interesting thing is "if there are possible worlds" and the "you's" are equivilent how can you feel responsibility for your actions? did you win the election or did you just fall into a random probability machine and end up as president while an "infinite" (or at least seemingly so) number of you failed.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1142971962022374042006-03-21T15:12:00.000-05:002006-03-21T15:12:00.000-05:00I am sorry that I have to be the one to break this...I am sorry that I have to be the one to break this to you, Hobbes, but there will be no next election. Hubert Humphrey is dead. He passed in his home in Waverly, Minnesota on January 13, 1978 at the age of 66. Maybe, somewhere out there in modal space, there is a world where he is still alive. Or, maybe not.Blarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654557196171228300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1142965079831457882006-03-21T13:17:00.000-05:002006-03-21T13:17:00.000-05:00Ah, trash it all and be a determinist. It's much m...Ah, trash it all and be a determinist. It's much more fun. There was only one 'possible' outcome in that election, Humphrey: the one that happened. Stop whinging and start planning for the next.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1142958561012263842006-03-21T11:29:00.000-05:002006-03-21T11:29:00.000-05:00I'm not sure I see the reasoning behind the claim ...I'm not sure I see the reasoning behind the claim that Lewis is no better off than the ersatzer. For instance, you say,<BR/><BR/>"Lewis' worlds may not contain trans-world concrete individuals as common parts. But neither do abstract worlds!"<BR/><BR/>But for the ersatzer I would have thought this move doesn't work; the ersatzer's abstract possible worlds are nothing other than the concrete actual world considered abstractly. The ersatzer is talking about maximally consistent ways this actual world (and these actual concrete individuals) could be. So the ersatzer's possible worlds <I>do</I> contain trans-world concrete individuals as common parts; just not all in the same respect. <BR/><BR/>Thus the ersatzer can agree with the Lewis that Humphrey is not a part of other possible worlds in the same respect that he is a part of this one; but that doesn't commit her to saying that Humphrey is not a part held in common by all the possible worlds at which he's found. Rather, she can say that all possible Humphreys are this real Humphrey (one and the same) under various modal and counterfactual descriptions.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1142948232935171972006-03-21T08:37:00.000-05:002006-03-21T08:37:00.000-05:00I always thought the response to irrelevance was t...I always thought the response to irrelevance was that it is the properties that Humphrey at this world has that make certain other-worldly beings counterparts of his. Thus, Humphrey might have won because his properties make him similar enough to a winner for us to say he's a possible winner. I believe plausible ersatzers can say something similar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com