# Neotenic comments on Pluralistic Existence in Many Many-Worlds

• Some in­ter­est­ing stuff about our con­cep­tions of the world might fall apart if you adopt the math­e­mat­i­cal uni­verse. If you think that the en­tirety of math­e­mat­i­cal struc­tures ex­ists in the same way, than it is hard to think what hap­pens when you de­cide to do good to some­one with the en­tire struc­ture. The whole thing just “is there”. Your de­ci­sion could be thought of as a com­pu­ta­tional pro­cess that takes place in many differ­ent sub­sets. But the ex­act op­po­site de­ci­sion still takes place where it takes place. Then you get some­thing com­pli­cated in which your de­ci­sion ends up con­flates with self lo­ca­tion in the near fu­ture. As if you de­cid­ing some­thing doesn’t change the whole, but only where in the whole are things of the “you” kind to be found.

And then, cit­ing Lewis be­comes helpful to find out about the min­i­mal lev­els of com­plex­ity we are deal­ing with: As sug­gested above, let us call an in­di­vi­d­ual which is wholly part of one world a pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­ual.” If a pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­ual X is part of a trans-world in­di­vi­d­ual Y, and X is not a proper part of any other pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­ual that is part of Y, let us call X a stage of Y. The stages of a trans-world in­di­vi­d­ual are its max­i­mal pos­si­ble parts; they are the in­ter­sec­tions of it with the wor­lds which it over­laps. It has at most one stage per world, and it is the mere­olog­i­cal sum of its stages. Some­times one stage of a trans-world in­di­vi­d­ual will be a coun­ter­part of an­other. If all stages of a trans-world in­di­vi­d­ual Y are coun­ter­parts of one an­other, let us call Y coun­ter­part-in­ter­re­lated. If Y is coun­ter­part-in­ter­re­lated, and not a proper part of any other coun­ter­part-in­ter­re­lated trans-world in­di­vi­d­ual (that is, if Y is max­i­mal coun­ter­part-in­ter­re­lated), then let us call Y a -pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­ual. Given any pred­i­cate that ap­plies to pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­u­als, we can define a cor­re­spond­ing starred pred­i­cate that ap­plies to -pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­u­als rel­a­tive to wor­lds. A -pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­ual is a -man at W iff it has a stage at W that is a man; it -wins the pres­i­dency at W iff it has a stage at W that wins the pres­i­dency; it is a -or­di­nary in­di­vi­d­ual at W iff it has a stage at W that is an or­di­nary in­di­vi­d­ual. It -ex­ists at world W iff it has a stage at W that ex­ists; like­wise it -ex­ists in its en­tirety at world W iff it has a stage at W that ex­ists its en­tirety, so—since any stage at any world does ex­ist in its en­tirety—a -pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­ual -ex­ists in its en­tirety at any world where it -ex­ists at all. (Even though it does not ex­ist in its en­tirety at any world.) It -is not a trans-world in­di­vi­d­ual at W iff it has a stage at W that is not a trans-world in­di­vi­d­ual, so ev­ery -pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­ual (al­though it is a trans-world in­di­vi­d­ual) also -is not a trans-world in­di­vi­d­ual at any world. It is a -pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­ual at W iff it has a stage at W that is a pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­ual, so some­thing is a -pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­ual sim­plic­iter iff it is a -pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­ual at ev­ery world where it -ex­ists. Like­wise for re­la­tions. One -pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­ual -kicks an­other at world W iff a stage at W of the first kicks a stage at W of the sec­ond; two -pos­si­ble in­di­vi­d­u­als are -iden­ti­cal at W iff a stage at W of the first is iden­ti­cal to a stage at W of the sec­ond; and so on.