3 Answers

  1. I would say so. Here's an example: people think that the main characters in anime are incredibly lucky, and that they would be lucky, and even in this amount it is almost impossible. And here is my answer: the history of this world goes not in such a way that it is so lucky, but on the contrary about a person who is so lucky. All the same, what to say “it is unrealistic that 1 out of 100 red balls will be gold”, when as in another case it is said exactly when one of these 100 balls was taken and replaced with a gold one. In different parallel universes, the outcome of one event may be different. So for example, you put a glass on the table
    1) it falls to the floor
    2) it is placed exactly
    3) it presses the fly that was there
    4) it slips right out of your hands
    And it is up to the author to choose only one outcome, out of all the existing ones.
    (I can't clearly formulate the idea, it's spinning in my head, but I do not know what exactly I want to say briefly)

  2. Leonid, you already asked a similar question six months ago https://thequestion.ru/questions/262310/pochemu-ya-eto-ya-kakova-byla-veroyatnost-togo-chto-ya-poyavlyus-na-svet-imenno-soboi-a-ne-kem-libo-drugim# Therefore, I will allow myself to reproduce my answer at that time:

    The question(s) is asked under the assumption that the “I” is given as a kind of pure “subjectivity, individuality and uniqueness” and that it pre-exists “to the real, empirical, psychological, personal” I “in which only” embodies/reincarnates and recognizes/tries to recognize itself. It is the pre-existence and independence of the pure self that condemns the personal self to such torments of self-consciousness: Who am I really? Why am I me? Am I me?

    Such a logically incorrect doubling of the ” I “and hypostasis of the” pure I “is the basis not only for this naive but sincere question, but also for a significant number of verbose quasi-religious, “paranaentific” and pseudo-philosophical speculations on this topic. R. Sheckley's remarkable novel “Exchange of Minds” can be considered a peculiar, “fascinating in content and witty in form, a refutation of these “fantasies” (I recommend it!).

    To overcome this (pseudo)problem noticing that �question about the “I” is primarily and directly, (1) question of the �”I'm asking” and (2) the question “I am” asking about himself. T. O. �focus is my actual, i.e. here and now �set = born in the throes of doubt (consciousness) “personal I” and �not conditional design “I do”, the content matching (or �correlated) with “my I”, but I could sit outside for �spatio-temporal limits “of my life.”

    And such an actual self is “not why?”: it has no external basis and reasons that guarantee the necessity of its birth, and even more so the birth of it. It is self-founded and does not appear because of (i.e., ” why?”), and �in spite of (“despite”). That is, it is impossible to calculate the probability of its �occurrence in advance simply because the probability of what �is unknown to calculate? And to ask such a question after the appearance is meaningless, since here the “I” is already valid, and not likely.

    But the reality of this ego is open and incomplete: here the ego is not the crown and realization of external causes and possibilities, but causa sui (the cause of itself) and the possibility of actual (i.e., active) self-realization. And the question is relevant here, but rather the question ” Why (for what) me?” and “How (how) am I?”

    Something like this 🙂 Good luck in self-discovery! 🙂

    Today I will add to what has been said that your question may be clarified (it will not answer, but it will clarify) the so-called scientific and philosophical anthropic principle (weak anthropic principle), see for example https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BF

    Good luck 🙂

  3. Our “I” has an informational nature, it is a product of the activity of the body's systems, storage, analysis, synthesis of huge information that our brain contains and it has a mediated relationship to the physical body of the baby being born.

    The ” I “as a psychological entity and the” I ” as a physical body certainly form a whole, but this does not happen at the moment of birth, much later. In other words, the” I “that I will appear to have little in common with the” person “whose birth marked the beginning of the formation of my” I”, no matter how paradoxical it may sound.

    The appearance of “us in the person of us” has a biological basis, it is a synthesis of hereditary information of our parents and their ancestors, combinations of this information can form a lot of different variants of constitutional registration, this does not matter much, of course, within the norm.

    “I am me, not anyone else,” is a controversial statement. We are very often “someone else”, without noticing it, and to say unequivocally, now it is “I”, and now it is” someone else ” is unrealistic, but due to the fact that “we are designed” in the form of our physical body and “go out” of its aisles is unrealistically difficult, we are used to perceive “ourselves as ourselves”, and not as “someone else”.

Leave a Reply