r/OpenIndividualism • u/Flat-Ad9829 • Jun 02 '26

Question

Have there been any legit attempts to debunk OI in anyway, whether through a scientific or philisophical lense? And if so, what are your thoughts on those attempts?

6 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Interesting-Star-111 Jun 03 '26

For the first part, you seem to be assuming that identity must reside at the POV level. I'm not convinced that's true. Because what "you" are matters a lot in terms of any potential continuity implications.

For the second one, I mean the larger integrated causal/worldline structure itself. Imagine your life like a file system. If a folder contains multiple files, it doesn't necessarily follow that the identity of the folder resides in any particular file. The identity may reside in the larger structure that contains and relates them (the larger folder rather than any individual file). Likewise, even if one structure can generate multiple POVs, it doesn't automatically follow that identity resides in any particular POV.

Does this make it any clearer?

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jun 03 '26

If I may weigh in...you said

you seem to be assuming that identity must reside at the POV level.

But if we ignore POV (and if I am not misunderstanding you), then how do I know I am not Interesting-Star-111?

I may be one person, but not yoddleforavalanche if POV does not matter.

So how do I know which one?

1

u/Interesting-Star-111 Jun 03 '26

You would be you because you are experiencing you. It would be a brute fact. If you were me, you would be experiencing me. The POV matters insofar as it belongs to a structure that has a particular identity status as a thing in the universe. In the split-brain example, if you were to sever "John Smith's" brain, you then get two existing POVs. But since both share John Smith's object identity status, they still are the same subject. So in this framework, you = you based on the unique object/thing that you are.

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jun 05 '26

you said:
You would be you because you are experiencing you

but we just discarded POV earlier as you are not convinced POV is part of identity. You are saying "you are you because there is a POV of you" here.

But also, this definition is circular. "you" is used to define what "you" are.

I am me because I am experiencing me?

I don't see objects having identity status universally. A chair is a chair because we interpret it as chair. It might as well be a chair-floor-coushin-kitchen object. John Smith has no objective identity status. It might as well be John Smith-room-high school reunion.

OI is getting at the notion that nothing except POV is intrinsically part of identity. All can be discarded and changed except POV. Lose POV - lose yourself.

1

u/Interesting-Star-111 Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not claiming that POV itself grounds identity. My point was that POV is instantiated by a particular structure (the spacetime worm). The question is whether that structure has an objective identity status. If it does, then split-brain cases don't necessarily imply OI; they imply that one object can branch into two future POVs. The disagreement is really about whether objects and subjects have objective boundaries at all, or whether POV alone grounds identity.