I don’t really have much to say today. Not that such a thing usually prevents me from running off at the keyboard (or the smartphone in this case) for stupid lengths on any given day. But I think it may do so today, because my energy is flagging, and it’s only just very early in the morning.
I suppose today’s date is mildly entertaining: it’s 7-7-2026, and that is the same in either the USian or the European way of ordering the day and the month. But that’s pretty unremarkable. Any day of a month in which the ordinal* number for the day is the same as the ordinal number for the month will produce this. There are, thus, 12 such days every year, and they are the same days every year. So, they are not very exciting.
I guess it would have been better back in 2007 (07-07-07), or even better, in 1977 (7-7-77). But then it would only be fun if you drop the two digits for the century (i.e., 20… or 19…). It’s not great, is it?
I don’t know. What should I talk about, here with my shouting into the void and gazing into the abyss and jumping into the conclusion?
That latter expression almost sounds like a euphemism for dying, doesn’t it? Is it like skipping to the end of a mystery novel? Probably not, because I’m very close to being certain that, unlike the end of a mystery novel, nothing will be revealed when one dies.
By that, I don’t mean that the truth will be revealed and it will be that there is nothing. It’s more subtle than that. I mean nothing of any kind will be revealed to you, because that to which the revelation might occur is what will cease entirely‒in a way, that happens every moment, but not in quite the same way as it will (I suspect) at the time of death.
Of course, I could be wrong about this, in principle. But I am not “agnostic” in the usual sense of simply not having any inkling one way or another about a question. I think there are good, strong reasons‒based on all we know of physics and biology and mathematics, and on how many different mythologies there are about “life after death” and how much they stink of desperate human fear and wish-fulfillment, how anthropocentric they are, when clearly the universe is not anthropocentric‒to think that death is simply the dissolution of the four-dimensional pattern that was a person, a sort of re-annihilation of “virtual particles” back to the vacuum state of the quantum field.
In a spatially infinite universe (or in some other version of a multiverse) it seems to be that there will exist other versions of you, both identical ones and nearly-identical ones, as well as quite different ones, including ones that inexplicably have all the memories of being other versions of you. But they will not literally have been you, and there will be a much higher proportion of “you” that will have random memories of every possible kind of nonsense.
Of course, none of these versions of you can violate the laws of physics**.
And they aren’t really you, are they? If they were, you might be experiencing everything any version of you is experiencing now, and you are not. There are strong impediments to such a simultaneous experience of infinite lives, not the least of which is the relativistic impossibility of information traveling at infinite speed, as well as the incoherence of the concept of “simultaneity” for objects with spatial separation (if this is not obvious, I encourage you to look into special relativity).
So, yeah. You are the state of your being right now, and that state is always changing (not randomly, though a lot of it does seem to be stochastic). There is not a much better description of “you” for accuracy, though there can be more precise and thorough descriptions of the details.
There could be a billion or a googol or Tree-3 number of “identical” copies of you, but each one would be just a separate “you”, no more a literal part of your being than would be your former womb-mate if you were one of a pair of identical twins.
Reality can be disappointing, though that’s really only if you think you have any right to expect it to be otherwise than it is. And you don’t have any such right.
Have a good day if you can.
*I think it’s ordinal, not cardinal, in this case, but I’m not too sure. I’ll look it up.
**I truly despise expressions, usually found in clickbait headlines, such as “this or that finding breaks physics” or “this shouldn’t happen, according to physics”. No. Nothing breaks physics. Nothing that happens “should not” happen according to physics, because physics is what describes what is out there in reality. If something seems to defy physics, that just shows that we don’t understand physics well enough. Such things are not generally frightening or worrisome to physicists (and other scientists); these things get them motivated, for they reveal places where we can learn new things about the universe. Scientists, ceteris paribus, love finding things no one understands. Science knows it doesn’t know everything***, and what’s more, science kind of loves that it doesn’t know everything. That’s part of the excitement, the challenge, the possibility of growth.
***If it thought it knew everything, it would cease.

