Subject: Imaginary worlds (was su'u)

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:33:10 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote:

> la djan cusku di'e
>
> >The predicate "married to Gale McGhan" non-rigidly designates me, since
> >there are many possible worlds in which it isn't true. But "first son
> >of Thomas Cowan and Marianne Schultz" rigidly designates me, since it
> >refers to me in every possible world in which I exist at all, and where
> >I don't exist it designates nobody.
>
> Can't you conceive of a world where your parents had a son
> say a year earlier than the year you were born? Would that
> person have been really you?

What is John Cowan?

> >I could have married someone else and still been me (hard as that is to
> >believe after 20+ years), but the first son of some other parents could
> >*not* have been me -- that would be somebody else altogether.
>
> The first son of your parents could have been some other person,
> and I'm not sure why you would not be you if you had been
> someone else's son. Probably you are right in biological
> terms, but "other worlds" includes any world we can imagine
> in linguistic terms, if I say "if you had been the son of
> George Washington" then I am bringing forth a world where
> you are the son of George Washington.

Not only that but, since there is only one real world and any number of
imaginary ones, how can you say that you would not be identical to your
current "self" if you HAD been born to George Washington? Since we are
departing from reality, we can construct an imaginary world by copying
John Cowan's life and pasting it after George Washington.

How can it be said that this is any less "realistic" than a world where
John Cowan never married Gale McGhan?

Responders should take caution. But I think a response is essential in
resolving this discussion.

-----
We do not like And if a cat
those Rs and Ds, needed a hat?
Who can't resist Free enterprise
more subsidies. is there for that!