Yup. Which is why I say it’s not clear to me those are fair questions.
I’m interpreting this as difficulty figuring out who the burden of proof belongs to. I think it helps to realize that with each theory there are at least three options:
Believe it’s true.
Believe it’s false.
Not believe anything.
If you say “There’s a dragon in my garage.” and I say “I don’t believe this.” I am not saying “I believe there is no dragon in your garage.” I’m saying “I don’t have a belief about this.”
Now, I could go in there and inspect everything and conclude that there’s no dragon, at which point I’d have a belief that there isn’t a dragon. But why should I do this? You might claim next that there’s a God in your garage. Then I’d have to go to all sorts of work trying to prove there is no God in your garage. Then you could claim that there’s a pink elephant, and on and on.
This is why, if you want people to believe something the burden of proof lies on you—you can’t just turn it around and say “Well prove that it’s NOT this way!”—if that were the rule, people would troll the crap out of us with dragons and Gods and pink elephants and such.
Does that give you any clarity in whose burden it is to offer evidence regarding time copying people?
Occam’s razor also seems to suggest that both of them are me, since the alternative posits an additional unnecessary entity in the system.
No. The additional entity is not unnecessary. The second instance is absolutely required to explain the way you reacted to my teleporter with technical failure argument.
I am surprised you didn’t update after that by recognizing that there were two separate instances, and I don’t know what to do about it. I’m stumped as to why you aren’t seeing it this way.
If you say “There’s a dragon in my garage.” and I say “I don’t believe this.” I am not saying “I believe there is no dragon in your garage.” I’m saying “I don’t have a belief about this.”
Perhaps you are. That’s certainly not what I would be saying if someone said that to me and I gave that reply.
This is why, if you want people to believe something the burden of proof lies on you—you can’t just turn it around and say “Well prove that it’s NOT this way!”
Proof in the sense you are discussing here is mostly useful when trying to win debates. I have no particular desire for you to believe anything in particular.
The second instance is absolutely required to explain the way you reacted to my teleporter with technical failure argument.
The unnecessary entity in the second case is the physically and behaviorally undetectable attribute which only the “real me” has. I don’t see any need for it, and I have no idea why you think it’s necessary to explain any part of my reaction to any of your hypotheticals.
I’m interpreting this as difficulty figuring out who the burden of proof belongs to. I think it helps to realize that with each theory there are at least three options:
Believe it’s true. Believe it’s false. Not believe anything.
If you say “There’s a dragon in my garage.” and I say “I don’t believe this.” I am not saying “I believe there is no dragon in your garage.” I’m saying “I don’t have a belief about this.”
Now, I could go in there and inspect everything and conclude that there’s no dragon, at which point I’d have a belief that there isn’t a dragon. But why should I do this? You might claim next that there’s a God in your garage. Then I’d have to go to all sorts of work trying to prove there is no God in your garage. Then you could claim that there’s a pink elephant, and on and on.
This is why, if you want people to believe something the burden of proof lies on you—you can’t just turn it around and say “Well prove that it’s NOT this way!”—if that were the rule, people would troll the crap out of us with dragons and Gods and pink elephants and such.
Does that give you any clarity in whose burden it is to offer evidence regarding time copying people?
No. The additional entity is not unnecessary. The second instance is absolutely required to explain the way you reacted to my teleporter with technical failure argument.
I am surprised you didn’t update after that by recognizing that there were two separate instances, and I don’t know what to do about it. I’m stumped as to why you aren’t seeing it this way.
Perhaps you are. That’s certainly not what I would be saying if someone said that to me and I gave that reply.
Proof in the sense you are discussing here is mostly useful when trying to win debates. I have no particular desire for you to believe anything in particular.
The unnecessary entity in the second case is the physically and behaviorally undetectable attribute which only the “real me” has. I don’t see any need for it, and I have no idea why you think it’s necessary to explain any part of my reaction to any of your hypotheticals.