92 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
92 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
# Proof of Open Individualism from the Principle of Sufficient Reason and Extended Modal Realism
|
||
|
||
## Assumptions
|
||
|
||
- **PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason)**: Every fact has a sufficient explanation.
|
||
- **EMR (Extended Modal Realism)**: All possible, impossible, and incoherent worlds are real.
|
||
- Conscious subjects exist in (some) worlds.
|
||
- **Phenomenal indexicality**: Each conscious subject experiences their own perspective (what it's like to be "me").
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Step-by-Step Proof of Open Individualism
|
||
|
||
### 1. Define the Subject of Experience
|
||
|
||
Let a *subject of experience* be the entity for which there is *something it is like* to exist (Nagel 1974). This is often modeled as an **observer-moment**: an instantaneous state of phenomenal consciousness.
|
||
|
||
Let the **set of all observer-moments** across all modalities be denoted:
|
||
|
||
\( \mathcal{O} \)
|
||
|
||
By EMR, \( \mathcal{O} \) contains every logically, illogically, metaphysically, and physically possible observer-moment.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### 2. Observer-Moment Identity
|
||
|
||
Let \( o_1, o_2 \in \mathcal{O} \) be any two observer-moments. Assume for contradiction that they belong to *distinct* subjects of experience.
|
||
|
||
This implies a distinction between subjects—say \( S_1 \) and \( S_2 \)—where \( o_1 \in S_1 \), \( o_2 \in S_2 \).
|
||
|
||
But such a distinction requires explanation under **PSR**:
|
||
- Why does \( o_1 \) belong to \( S_1 \) and not \( S_2 \), and vice versa?
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### 3. No Sufficient Reason for Subject Boundaries
|
||
|
||
Per **EMR**, *every* way of carving up experience—including *no carving at all*—exists in some world. There are incoherent worlds with:
|
||
- No subject boundaries,
|
||
- Reversed or cyclic boundaries,
|
||
- Infinitely fractal or inconsistent individuation.
|
||
|
||
Therefore, **any particular boundary assignment is modally arbitrary**.
|
||
|
||
By **PSR**, this arbitrariness is unacceptable:
|
||
> There must be a sufficient reason for why *this* partitioning of observer-moments into subjects holds rather than another.
|
||
|
||
But EMR ensures *every* partitioning exists. So no single partition can be ontologically privileged **without violating PSR**.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### 4. Eliminate Arbitrary Multiplicity
|
||
|
||
To preserve PSR, we must **eliminate all arbitrary distinctions** between observer-moments.
|
||
|
||
This leads to the only viable identity structure:
|
||
> **Open Individualism (OI)**: All observer-moments are experienced by one and the same subject.
|
||
|
||
All other identity theories (e.g., Closed Individualism or Empty Individualism) impose distinctions that:
|
||
- Lack sufficient reason,
|
||
- Conflict with EMR’s universal realization of partitionings,
|
||
- Therefore **violate PSR**.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### 5. Objection: Why *One* and Not *Many*?
|
||
|
||
OI is not privileging “one” per se. Rather:
|
||
- It imposes **no boundaries**,
|
||
- It is **identity-minimal**,
|
||
- It **avoids arbitrary structure**.
|
||
|
||
Hence, it is the only account compatible with **PSR + EMR**.
|
||
|
||
Any multiplicity implies a modally unjustified subject individuation.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## ✅ Conclusion
|
||
|
||
Given:
|
||
- **PSR**: No arbitrary or unexplained facts,
|
||
- **EMR**: All identity structures exist across worlds,
|
||
- **OI**: The only non-arbitrary, non-partitioned account of experience,
|
||
|
||
We conclude:
|
||
|
||
> **Open Individualism is necessarily true**: there exists a single, modally unbounded subject who experiences every observer-moment.
|
||
|
||
Any alternative view entails unexplained distinctions—thus violating the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
|
||
|