What exactly is trans-world identity? How can the same person exist in two worlds?
An identity is just something by which a thing can be defined. The number ‘2’ has an identity if I say 2 = 1 + 1. Therefore, an identity can transcend a world if it is simply defined as doing so. As for how a person can exist in two worlds, then I have to ask what you mean by ‘world’.
By world I mean the parallel universe in which we reside.
See Wikipedia Multiverse Article
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29
trans-world identity – the notion that there can be the same object in different possible worlds
of course that is just a theory…
although its a good one in my opinion.
an inifinite universe with an infinite number of possibilities and dimensions for every nanosecond. meaning you would exist as an infinite entity.
As a logical device? Highly useful. As a serious metaphysical theory? Missing the point.
I’m seriously out of me depth here (my depth been spewing bits of half digested Nietzsche at people!!) but I think the Scientific American referenced article referenced in the wikepedia article is saying that such universes may HAVE to exist. They arise as by products of certain theories in physics - mostly those to do with the origin of our particular universe.
So I’m not sure if that gives them a status of just being logically necessary (for the theories) or really necessary - if any of these theories are remotely like the real universe(s)!
From talking to a mate whose area is string theory you’re often dealing with area where energy is so high or “particles” so tiny that ordinary scientific method - hypothesis followed by experiment is out the window (or would involve experiments of big bang proportions - in fact may be we are such an experiment gone wrong - I remember a story by Stanislaus Lem…).
These guys often get quite Pythagorean appealing to “the beauty” of their maths v the ugliness of the maths behind some other idea…
krossie
pdf is a good read - nice diagrams! (18 pages though - could be a long lunch!)
Well at some point we have to trust that the Physicists know what they are doing, but I don’t often think they realise what they are saying.
true, however one must accept that it is a possibility.
For me its intersting that serious maths/physics heads are throwing around concepts that are very much like philosophy of becoming/multipicity/diversity/plurality/multiplicityplay of /forces/movement etc ala Heraclitus - I can’t say I’m upset at all!
The above article (the pdf from Tegmark) is a great read plus he actually seems to have a sense of humour which I thought “serious” scientists had to have grafted out of them before they get into the lab. Mind you only half way through it…
I see nothing other than becoming. Be not deceived. It is the fault of your myopia, not the nature of things, if you believe you see land somewhere in the ocean of coming-to-be and passing away."
Heraclitus
Krossie
A concept regarding the “Many Worlds Theory” is that there is uncertainty with which doppelgangers you branch off with. In other words, we never know which copies of people we split with.
I think that you will also find interest in my other recent forum entitled “Identical Identities” in the Philosophy section.
A lot of ‘cutting edge’ physics isn’t really science but mathematical models; it would be nice to have a unified theory of physics. But a lot of string theorists are often talking of the aesthetics of the theory and how everything fits together. Even if they found their gravitons that wouldn’t be a definite finding which could verify sting theory. I mean I’d love to see them do it, it would give more basis for their speculations and more research could be done. But we don’t have to ‘trust’ physicist, it’s not like popper’s romantic scientists activity trying to falsify their own theories actually exists. They also have this strange habit of trying to impinge on other disciplines under the authority of being a physicists which is kind of annoying.