[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 2.39 MB, 680x720, 1668978043448688.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21781688 No.21781688 [Reply] [Original]

Every second you are killed and nearly perfectly cloned. You did not exist in the past, you will not exist in the future.

How would you refute this?

>> No.21781712

>>21781688
killed by whomst??
refute that

>> No.21781713
File: 50 KB, 645x770, 54B7F25F-F816-459A-90D5-C77B02418641.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21781713

You can’t. It’s loosely defining time with a dash of entropy.

>> No.21781715

>>21781688
Retrocausality means I live in the past present and future simultaneously
>also I'm a doppelganger

>> No.21781717

>>21781712
Physical transformation, time is defined by change. Mind is physical.

>> No.21781724

>>21781688
What constitutes death? Is it when my heart stops? When my last neuron fires? When the last bacterium in my gut gives up the ghost? Serious questions

>> No.21781738

>>21781724
You can only survive one experience.

An experience requires and experiencer. Experiencer is a physical thing. Physical things are constantly changing. Slightest change to an experience would indicate death of the last experiencer and a birth of a new experiencer.

>> No.21781745

>>21781738
Prove it

>> No.21781755

>>21781745
Doppelganger here. What about teleportation? Or split-brain patients? Have you ever had an out of body experience?

>> No.21781758

>>21781745
Prove what? Non-physical experiencer would require changes in brain from non-physical things. Physical non-physical interaction would violate known physics that has never been observed. Fucking with brain changes people's mind has been observed a million times.

>> No.21781764

>>21781755
>What about teleportation?
No evidence
>Or split-brain patients?
Personality is delocalized in the brain
>Have you ever had an out of body experience?
No. Have you? If so, tell me about it. Dreams and drug trips don’t count

>> No.21781771

>>21781758
Prove your assertion that time is discrete rather than continuous as that’s what you seem to be suggesting

>> No.21781772

>>21781764
I wouldn't worry about it

>> No.21781775

>>21781772
You’re giving up this easily? Really? Convince me anon. I’m open minded but you have to provide something, anything

>> No.21781792

>>21781688


EVERY SECOND ONE IS KILLED; REPLACEMENT WITH A CLONE TAKES ONE THOUSANDTH OF A SECOND; A THOUSAND SECONDS ADD UP TO ONE SECOND OF MISSED TIME: THAT IS WHY WE HAVE «LEAP YEARS».

>> No.21781799

>>21781771
I'm not making any discrete/continuous hard assumption about time. Infinitely continuous change doesn't save you from not existing.

A lot of physical changes are required to form an experiencer into being from a point when the experiener did not exist and that experiencer exists as long as it experience a thing. A slight change to the experience is a new experiencer. Discrete/continuous time both works the same.

>> No.21781800

>>21781688
The word "killed" and "cloned" are not being used in traditionally understood senses and lose a lot of their meaning because of it. Saying at every moment I am killed does not accurately reflect our experience of the passage in time in relation to what the common sense meaning of death or "being killed" implies. Obviously I have not died yet and cannot refute this idea of being killed by knowing what "it is like" or if there is a it is like-ness of dying as it is normally understood (just as I cannot know what it is like to be a bat), but I can still argue that this theory fails on account of positing a misunderstood and unnecessary correlation between simple "change" and death. There is no object which doesn't change as it endures through time, be it even in simply a kinematic way. But we don't typically say that inanimate objects, or trees, caterpillars, or any other being "dies" because it changes in some way or replaces itself. In common understanding, "death" or "being killed" for a human implies a complete stoppage of biological processes/consciousness/physical being. I would say that our experience of temporal change cannot be remotely called a death because, 1. the experience of persistence and continuity in time contradict the concept of death, and 2. although it is not comparable to the actual experience of death (unknowable until it happens), it is still qualitatively different from an experience which requires a similar experiential landscape: Deep dreamless sleep.

>> No.21781807

Am I killed befored I'm cloned? If so, then how do you reanimate the dead thereafter?
Am I cloned before I'm killed? If so why haven't I experienced a single moment where I was two?

>> No.21781808
File: 559 KB, 766x445, schrodingers_cat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21781808

>>21781775

>> No.21781826

>>21781800
This /thread

>> No.21781838
File: 1.03 MB, 1920x1336, 234567890.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21781838

>>21781800
>>21781826
Something can feel/appear differently than it actually is. Just because you seem to persist in your head doesn't mean you actually do. Death is a state of non-existence of a person. It is commonly understood as biological/body death but I'm saying that understanding is wrong.

There's nothing at stake if a table is not the same table because it'll function the same. If people are not actually the same person after one second, it doesn't mean they'll act differently and so for many practical purposes they can be treated as if they are the same person, none of these however supports that they are actually the same person. Someone perfectly cloned, killed and replaced by their clone is clearly a case of someone dying a given but they'll pass all your tests.

>> No.21781847

>>21781807
You were never two. Your body created you of now and by the time you'll finish reading this will have killed and replaced with nearly perfect clone of the "you of now" I referred to at the beginning of this sentence in a continuous process. All memories you have access to are of dead people.

>> No.21781849

>>21781808
You clearly don’t understand what Schrodinger was trying to do: he was providing an analogy regarding the superposition of states. Quantum mechanics is simply a model, it has no metaphysical implications per se

>> No.21781850

>>21781849
Don't worry about it then

>> No.21781851

>>21781847
Prove it

>> No.21781857

>>21781850
I’m not worried about it all. You have a fish on your hook. Reel it in

>> No.21781861

>rapes your asshole
>waits one second
>The charges officer?

>> No.21781871

>>21781847
You either don't believe in the concept of 'sequence' or you don't understand it

>> No.21781886

>>21781871
great reply, good job

>> No.21781923

>>21781838
Great, now you just have an absolutely unfalsifiable idea that makes little sense to even posit. An inherently unexperience-able force which changes the idea of experience without changing experience itself... what a useful concept!

>> No.21781961

>>21781688
What is your proof?
And why? What is the reason behind this happening?

>> No.21782052

>>21781923
>unfalsifiable
updooted

>> No.21782058

>>21781961
your brain is a physical thing, physical things are under constant transformations