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