115 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
115 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
# Formal Proof: Open Individualism Necessarily Follows from EMR and PSR
|
||
|
||
## Front Matter
|
||
|
||
### Definitions
|
||
|
||
- **Open Individualism (OI):** The metaphysical view that there is only one subject of experience — all conscious beings, across all space, time, and modality, are numerically the same experiencer.
|
||
|
||
- **Closed Individualism (CI):** The view that each person is a separate, distinct subject of experience. You are only your body and not anyone else.
|
||
|
||
- **Empty Individualism (EI):** The view that each moment of consciousness is a distinct experiencer. There is no enduring self — only a sequence of isolated experiential events.
|
||
|
||
- **Extended Modal Realism (EMR):** The metaphysical view that all possible, impossible, and even incoherent worlds exist. Modal existence is total — nothing is arbitrarily excluded.
|
||
|
||
- **Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR):** The principle that every fact must have a sufficient, non-arbitrary reason for why it is so and not otherwise. This includes identity facts.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Assumptions
|
||
|
||
- EMR is true: all minds in all forms exist across all modal realities.
|
||
- PSR is true: no fact, including personal identity, can be brute or arbitrary.
|
||
- We are not attempting to prove EMR or PSR in this document — only what follows from them.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Step-by-Step Proof
|
||
|
||
### Step 1: EMR implies that all minds — including identical and near-identical ones — exist.
|
||
|
||
- There exist minds in different bodies and worlds that are phenomenally identical to your own.
|
||
- Some of these duplicates are exact copies; others differ by small degrees.
|
||
|
||
### Step 2: PSR requires that distinctions between minds have sufficient reason.
|
||
|
||
- If two minds are phenomenally and structurally identical, there can be no non-arbitrary basis to say one is “you” and the other is not.
|
||
- Any attempt to do so would violate PSR by positing an unexplained identity difference.
|
||
|
||
### Step 3: Therefore, identical conscious states must correspond to the same subject.
|
||
|
||
- The “you” experiencing Mind A must also be the “you” experiencing Mind B if there is no reason to distinguish them.
|
||
- The only non-arbitrary solution is numerical identity of subject across instantiations.
|
||
|
||
### Step 4: This principle generalizes to all minds.
|
||
|
||
- Minds form a continuum across all modal realities.
|
||
- If two minds differ, they do so gradually and by degree — but boundaries between “subjects” remain arbitrary unless grounded.
|
||
- PSR disallows such brute boundary-making.
|
||
|
||
### Step 5: Therefore, Open Individualism is the only theory of identity compatible with EMR and PSR.
|
||
|
||
- CI fails because it posits brute separateness.
|
||
- EI fails because it posits brute fragmentation of subjecthood at every moment.
|
||
- OI alone requires no brute distinctions in assigning subjective identity.
|
||
|
||
✅ **Q.E.D.**
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Rejection of Competing Theories
|
||
|
||
### ❌ Closed Individualism (CI)
|
||
|
||
- Treats each body as a separate subject.
|
||
- Under EMR, there are many identical bodies and minds — yet only one “you.”
|
||
- Assigning “you” to only one version is arbitrary unless justified.
|
||
- CI therefore violates PSR.
|
||
|
||
### ❌ Empty Individualism (EI)
|
||
|
||
- Treats each moment of experience as a distinct subject.
|
||
- Fails to account for continuity of experience — treats successive moments as fundamentally unconnected.
|
||
- Introduces brute numerical identity distinctions across time with no justification.
|
||
- EI therefore violates PSR.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Rebuttals to Common Objections
|
||
|
||
### Objection 1: “I only feel like I am this body — not all others.”
|
||
|
||
**Response:**
|
||
This is an epistemic limitation, not a metaphysical one. You don’t feel your past self directly either, but you still consider it to be “you.” Introspective feeling does not justify metaphysical distinctness.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### Objection 2: “It’s absurd to say I am everyone.”
|
||
|
||
**Response:**
|
||
Absurdity is not the same as incoherence. The conclusion may be counterintuitive, but it is logically required by EMR + PSR. Rejecting it requires accepting brute facts, which violates PSR.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### Objection 3: “But different minds have different thoughts and experiences — how can they be one?”
|
||
|
||
**Response:**
|
||
Differences in experience do not imply differences in the experiencer. A single subject can undergo varying states without fragmenting into multiple subjects. Just as you are still “you” when you wake up with different thoughts than yesterday.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### Objection 4: “Personal identity must be tied to physical continuity.”
|
||
|
||
**Response:**
|
||
This is a physicalist assumption that cannot account for modal duplicates. In EMR, there are exact replicas with no causal link to “your” body. Without PSR-justified boundaries, physical continuity cannot ground unique subjecthood.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Conclusion
|
||
|
||
- EMR ensures that all minds — including duplicates and variants — exist.
|
||
- PSR ensures that distinctions between them must be non-arbitrary and justified.
|
||
- Only Open Individualism avoids brute identity facts and fully satisfies both.
|
||
- Therefore, Open Individualism is necessarily true given EMR and PSR.
|
||
|
||
✅ **Final Conclusion: OI is the only metaphysically coherent theory of personal identity under EMR and PSR.**
|