Yet if you insist on an objective population count, for whatever reason, you have Soritic problems whether or not you delve into quantum physics.
Well, yes, because you’re trying to objectively count something as poorly defined as “heaps”. If you want to have an objective population count of , you need an objective definition of what is a , whether you’re counting “heap”, “person”, or “sound in a forest”.
Don’t let your intuition mislead you about the problem. Your brain is evolved to deal with human tribal politics, and so has a bunch of baked-in shortcuts about what’s a “person” is that speed processing but do not necessarily have to reflect reality.
For example, as soon as you talk about one mind becoming two, you’ve assumed that minds/people come in integer packages. How do you know that? Maybe a half-split Ebborian is actually 1.5 “people”, properly defined. Just because they didn’t look like they came in fractions back on the savannah doesn’t mean that they can’t.
Possible avenue of research: multiple systems over time, especially those whose members change a lot, those who are often blendy, and medians. Though blendiness and much of the rest involves how a person thinks, not destruction of information about them.
Well, yes, because you’re trying to objectively count something as poorly defined as “heaps”. If you want to have an objective population count of , you need an objective definition of what is a , whether you’re counting “heap”, “person”, or “sound in a forest”.
Don’t let your intuition mislead you about the problem. Your brain is evolved to deal with human tribal politics, and so has a bunch of baked-in shortcuts about what’s a “person” is that speed processing but do not necessarily have to reflect reality.
For example, as soon as you talk about one mind becoming two, you’ve assumed that minds/people come in integer packages. How do you know that? Maybe a half-split Ebborian is actually 1.5 “people”, properly defined. Just because they didn’t look like they came in fractions back on the savannah doesn’t mean that they can’t.
Possible avenue of research: multiple systems over time, especially those whose members change a lot, those who are often blendy, and medians. Though blendiness and much of the rest involves how a person thinks, not destruction of information about them.