[ExI] Open Individualism

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 6:22 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> At the risk of jumping on toes, I think part of your disagreement might
> perhaps be similar to our (Jason and mine) disagreement around the MWI and
> interpretations of quantum physics.
>
> I think after a _long_ discussion we came to the conclusion that the
> fundamental disagreement was around what can be directly known and proven,
> vs what is implied, and the status of implications of theories, vs proven
> facts of theories.
>
> I think after finding some labels we ended up on the scientific realism vs
> anti-realism spectrum, with a healthy dose of agnosticism as well in the
> form of instrumentalism.
>
> Jason brought up a good point that we should always keep looking and
> expanding our boundaries, and I agreed, but if there is no hard proof, I
> think we should be very clear that we are speculating.
>
> When it comes to speculation and philosophy, I guess you can opt either
> for the analytic tradition, á la handmaiden of the sciences and focus on
> clarifying. But then you have the other side, the non-analytic with a
> focus on existentialist themes as well as speculation to "inspire"
> science.
>
> Just a few cents from the side lines.
>
>
Thank you Daniel, I appreciate your insights and I too was feeling echoes
of that discussion.

What it comes down to is whether we believe only what we see, or do we take
theories literally and adopt some (less certain) belief in the implications
of our theories.

Unless one is careful, it is hard to make a metaphysical commitment either
way. As both denying the existence of other universes, as well as accepting
the existence of other universes is a metaphysical commitment. To remain
agnostic one must be silent on the question, to neither accept nor deny the
existence of other universes which we do not see.

As it comes to personal identity, the absolutist instrumentalist position
could conclude only that they are a single thought moment, and could never
have any evidence that other future thought moments (from their
perspective) exist or will be experienced. The existence of future points
in time, would be a theoretical conjecture, though one we must accept to
operate as functioning beings in the world. Thus, even the conventional /
folk view of personal identity makes unprovable metaphysical assumptions
concerning the existence of unobserved entities (future experiences).

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240106/cfe9fdc0/attachment.htm>