If one regard physics as a detached description of the world— like a non-interacting yet apt depiction of the objective reality, (assuming that exists and is attainable) then yes there is no distinct “me”. And any explanation of subject experience ought to be explained by physical processes, such that everyone’s “MEness” must be ultimately reduced to the physical body.
However my entire position stems from a different logical starting point. It starts with “me”. It is an undeniable and fundamental fact that I am this particular thing, which I later referred to it as a human being called Dadadarren. (Again I assume the same goes for everyone) Everything I know about the world is through that thing’s interaction with its environment, which leads to accessible subjective experience. Even physics is learned in such a way, as well as the conception that other things could have perspective different from mine own. I am not interacting with the world as someone of something else, from those thing’s perspective, is just a simple realization after that.
This way physics would not be taken as the detached fundamental description of objective reality. The description has to originate from a given thing’s perspective, working based on its interaction from the environment. That given perspective could be mine, could be Elon’s, could be a thermometer’s or an electron’s. We strive for concepts and formulas that works from a wide range of perspectives. That’s what physical objectivity should mean.
So it follows that physics cannot explain why I am Dadadarren and not Elon: because perspective is a prior. This makes way more sense to me personally: the physical knowledge about the two human beings doesn’t even touch on why I am Dadadarren and not Elon. (and that was the purpose of the thought experiment) At least better than the alternative: that they is no ME, or that I am Elon just as I am me, in some convoluted sense such as open individualism.
So from where I stand, it is physicalism that requires justification.
I think this discussion is focusing on what other’s would behave towards me, and derive what ought to be regarded as my future self from there. That is certainly a valid discussion to be had. However my post is taking about a different (thought related) topic.
For example, if I for whatever crazy reason thinks that me from tomorrow:—the one with (largely) the same physical body and no trick on memory whatsoever— not my future self. Then I would do a bunch of irresponsible things that would lead to others’ dislike or hostility toward me that could eventually lead to my demise. But so what? If I regard that as a different person, then to hell with him. The current me wouldn’t even care. So being detrimental to that future person would not compel current me to regard him as my future self.
Luckily we do not behave that way. Everyone, rational ones at least, considers the person with the same physical body and memories of the current self as themself in the future. That is the survival instinct, that is the consensus.
But that consensus is about an idiosyncratic situation: where memory(experience) and physical body are bound together. Take that away, and we no longer have a clear, unequivocal basis to start a logical discussion. Someone’s basis could be the survival of the same physical body would not step into the teletranporter, even if it is greatly convenient and could benefit the one steps out of it. Someone else could start from a different basis. They may believe that only patterns matters. So mind uploading into a silicon machine to make easy copies at the cost of adversely affecting the carbon body would be welcomed. None of these positions could be rebutted by the cost/benefit analysis of some future minds. Because they may or may not care about those minds, at different levels, in the first place.
Sure, logic is not entirely irrelevant. It comes into play after you pick the basis of your decision. But values, instead of logic, largely determines the answer to the question.