>>10214859>is there any chancein the context of "agnostic" probability, then yes
>>10214964Ignoring random quantum fluctuations creating minute differences in qualia, your scenario would need to take place with 1 observer looking at 100 different worlds for the sole reason that 100 clones cannot have the same identical experience without all of them occupying the same spacetime.
Consciousness isn't solely defendant on genetic makeup because "random" mutations occur throughout life, cell reproduction has multiple possible outcomes from the same initial state.
Your jump to the idea that consciousness would be shared to other organisms is baseless.
>>10215044Chances of immediately dying having come into being on those other planets would be high, unless "something" is selecting habitable conditions prior to life genesis.
>>10215216Determinism isn't happy or sad, it simply is. It's no different than watching a movie or playing a game where you don't know the outcome. The obsession over fate and being "out of control" of your life will just lead to schizophrenia.
Every time I see one of these threads I'm shocked that no one ever brings up the simple principle that information cannot be created or destroyed. Our consciousness is information and death is just a form of decoherence. The information still exists somewhere in a decoherent state. The organic brain is a processor which makes the information of qualia coherent.
Just as black holes have an information loss paradox then death should also have an information loss paradox. See what i'm saying?
