The idea of infinity here is wrong. 1/infinity would not be zero, but infinitesimal. You can see that while solving integrals. We divide an area into infinite divisions, but each division must have non-zero area. This is how points make a line, or lines make a plane. Given infinite time, anything can happen. Also, you cannot say things with less chance cannot happen, even in finite time. Hence, we can entirely exist without reincarnation.
If you're looking for a good time you can play around with the Indian answers to these various arguments on both sides. If there is only one consciousness, which in that tradition one might call Shiva, most of these problems are resolved. This solution is repugnant to most Westerners who want to believe in the individuality of the soul, even after confronting the transient and brain dependent Nature of any specific part of their experience of individuality.
When philosophy gets this ridiculous, maybe you should consider whether there's something wrong with the methods of the person doing said philosophy. What's next, an a priori argument for astrology?
Did you come up with that argument yourself? It's very clever. And I agree with it.
FWIW I think something like 2) is correct, the argument makes mistaken assumptions about probabilistic reasoning with de se beliefs: https://jaeger.hosting.nyu.edu/IB.pdf
I’m not sure about Huemer’s conception of the soul, but I do think that the notion you can be in multiple places at once is reasonable given the science. Quantum experimentation shows that an object can be in a superposition over multiple locations. Experimentally, we can only induce this state in small objects, but the size of objects we can achieve this with has been increasing over time and there is no known mechanism that imposes any size limit. It stands to reason that you could put a person into a superposition too.
Is this exactly the same as showing a soul can be in multiple bodies simultaneously? I don’t know, but it’s certainly suggestive. Maybe the weirdness of the universe should lead people to question their intuitions here.
Ok. My counter argument after thinking of this for 10 minutes in bed:
Doesn’t the chain of logic really only say that reincarnation is true OR that we’re in multiple places at once?
I say this because the initial argument is based on time, while your “absurd” (and I agree it’s a strong absurdity) counterpoint extends it so space.
But space and time are two sides of the same coin. We can imagine the universe as an infinite collection of space-time points. If a being only exists in a finite number of random points, the the chances of it existing are (so the argument claims) zero.
But if a being reincarnates infinitely, then it exists in an infinite number of these points. Thus (apparently) its chances of existing randomly are not zero.
The same is true for a being in an infinite hunger of positions at once.
But either of these is sufficient to avoid the 0% issue. If you really do reincarnate, then the chance of you being at this specific point in space is above 0, because you will visit an infinite number of points in space.
Now you might say that it’s not a question of whether you’ll at some time visit a random point, but whether you’ll visit a random point at a given time.
I don’t think that you can separate time and space that easily. As a factual matter, the two are inseparable as per physics or whatever. Even imagining them separated, the logic doesn’t hold. Although you’re at this random point with a 1/infinity chance, this is just one of an infinite number of points you will be reincarnated into. Given that knowledge, it would be surprising if you weren’t in this point at some moment that is your “now”.
The idea of infinity here is wrong. 1/infinity would not be zero, but infinitesimal. You can see that while solving integrals. We divide an area into infinite divisions, but each division must have non-zero area. This is how points make a line, or lines make a plane. Given infinite time, anything can happen. Also, you cannot say things with less chance cannot happen, even in finite time. Hence, we can entirely exist without reincarnation.
If you're looking for a good time you can play around with the Indian answers to these various arguments on both sides. If there is only one consciousness, which in that tradition one might call Shiva, most of these problems are resolved. This solution is repugnant to most Westerners who want to believe in the individuality of the soul, even after confronting the transient and brain dependent Nature of any specific part of their experience of individuality.
When philosophy gets this ridiculous, maybe you should consider whether there's something wrong with the methods of the person doing said philosophy. What's next, an a priori argument for astrology?
Did you come up with that argument yourself? It's very clever. And I agree with it.
FWIW I think something like 2) is correct, the argument makes mistaken assumptions about probabilistic reasoning with de se beliefs: https://jaeger.hosting.nyu.edu/IB.pdf
"4. So I can be in multiple places at once"
Not merely can, but must, and not merely multiple, but infinite. ;-)
(According to the premises, that is, not according to my belief.)
I’m not sure about Huemer’s conception of the soul, but I do think that the notion you can be in multiple places at once is reasonable given the science. Quantum experimentation shows that an object can be in a superposition over multiple locations. Experimentally, we can only induce this state in small objects, but the size of objects we can achieve this with has been increasing over time and there is no known mechanism that imposes any size limit. It stands to reason that you could put a person into a superposition too.
Is this exactly the same as showing a soul can be in multiple bodies simultaneously? I don’t know, but it’s certainly suggestive. Maybe the weirdness of the universe should lead people to question their intuitions here.
Ok. My counter argument after thinking of this for 10 minutes in bed:
Doesn’t the chain of logic really only say that reincarnation is true OR that we’re in multiple places at once?
I say this because the initial argument is based on time, while your “absurd” (and I agree it’s a strong absurdity) counterpoint extends it so space.
But space and time are two sides of the same coin. We can imagine the universe as an infinite collection of space-time points. If a being only exists in a finite number of random points, the the chances of it existing are (so the argument claims) zero.
But if a being reincarnates infinitely, then it exists in an infinite number of these points. Thus (apparently) its chances of existing randomly are not zero.
The same is true for a being in an infinite hunger of positions at once.
But either of these is sufficient to avoid the 0% issue. If you really do reincarnate, then the chance of you being at this specific point in space is above 0, because you will visit an infinite number of points in space.
Now you might say that it’s not a question of whether you’ll at some time visit a random point, but whether you’ll visit a random point at a given time.
I don’t think that you can separate time and space that easily. As a factual matter, the two are inseparable as per physics or whatever. Even imagining them separated, the logic doesn’t hold. Although you’re at this random point with a 1/infinity chance, this is just one of an infinite number of points you will be reincarnated into. Given that knowledge, it would be surprising if you weren’t in this point at some moment that is your “now”.