Is that true though? I’m many things to many people 🤔 there’s no single version of me.
Discussion
Hmm, you wouldn’t say that a specific star in the sky has not one planetary system but multiple planetary systems around it just because several astronomers can’t agree on which model best matches the observation data would you?
In other words, you are something, and the truth doesn’t care about their feelings [about you].
I see what you’re saying about the state of something regardless of the observer. I wasn’t really thinking about the differences between classical and quantum physics. I was leaning more toward the idea of the infinite space and the infinite possibilities in infinite spaces - but I guess that does veer into quantum physics.
Gotcha. Yeah, nobody is locked into one particular future! If we set time aside - we could think about all those possible future versions of you coexisting in our minds, each with some probability of being the path you follow. Which will you choose? How will you choose? How much voice do you personally have in the selection?
I know you’re talking about something else here, but I’ll just add that the quantum effect is the same regardless of who the observer is, and my astronomy example is not a quantum effect, just an ambiguity in the little data my example indicates we have about that star and its planets. The result is that multiple different models, each with their own sets of assumptions, come to different conclusions about the planets around the star. I was just saying that the fact that several people form multiple different models of who you are, their differences are due to their limited data rather than you actually being multiple.
If there is no single version, there are not many versions. You invoked the idea of versions in order to contemplate this, in context of "there." Where is "there?" Is "there" the only version of there that there is? No. Elsewhere is a version of "there" that has precisely one of each thing. This may be a framework of thought, a hologram or image of reality, or some other reality, in which there is only one of quite a few things.
Regardless of this, the concept of multiple entails the singular.
But is there is an infinite possibility of “there” then how can we say there is only one thing in that “there” when in fact that number is infinite
You've chosen an arbitrary framework for inspecting this, wherein what you're saying makes sense. I don't limit myself to that one framework.
I would argue you are forgetting the nature of definitions and concepts, and our ability to reorient them.
Do go on … what am I forgetting?
So what you're saying is true, from a certain point of view, but I need not share that point of view and base my entire language to fit it. I may also be missing your point.
Ok, I think I know what you mean. Maybe I don’t really know what I’m getting at either 🤣
It's a thought experiment, and those are always good. I have a habit of giving really challenging questions and alternatives. Do keep exploring, but expect contrarianism from me lol!