X-Message-Number: 20957
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:45:14 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Identity and Equivalence

>Implication: there is NO special set of characteristics
>which makes two things of whatever kind identical.

Thomas Donaldson makes a good point here and otherwise in his posting, but 
it might be preferable to substitute "equivalent" for "identical." We are 
then defining what we consider to be equivalent objects or things. Clearly 
we can choose any definition we want to partition a set of things into 
equivalence classes, all the way from "everything is equivalent to 
everything" to "no two things that differ in any way whatsoever are 
equivalent." And we can attach whatever significance we want to our concept 
of equivalence. If you think, for example, that a duplicate of you is you, 
you are expressing a preference about equivalence which involves both its 
meaning to you and (presumably) its significance as well. Different people 
will have different preferences. That is why I, for one, think there will 
be no final determination as to who is right versus who is wrong on such an 
issue as personal identity (and related concepts such as survival), except 
that it may turn out that, as the future unfolds, people who think one way 
will increasingly outnumber those who think some other way. One may 
conjecture, for instance, that, after enough time has passed, say, 1,000 
years, assuming civilization continues and develops, the surviving beings 
will overwhelmingly favor what has been called the information paradigm, 
that basically you are your bits, not atoms, so that duplicates will be 
considered equivalent. (I could go into a lengthy discussion of why I think 
this is likely, but will pass on it for now.)

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20957