What do atheists think of death?

I agree, infinite does not imply repetition. The argument I was making is that something which has a nonzero probability of happening somewhere (even if it is really amazingly tiny) is guaranteed to happen somewhere if the universe is infinite. Sure, if the laws of physics change elsewhere then the probability may drop to zero, in which case my argument is void. Do the laws change over large distances? I have no idea and neither does anyone else at this point. Future experiments may tell.

Assuming memory and experiences are encoded chemically/electrically in the human body (that is, no supernatural element), then in the example I used previously the experiences are identical between the two individuals and this first case is not applicable. If you are the same at the time of death then that is true. If you are the same at some point before the death of one, then it does not follow that the other dies as well. Consider a person named Joe A on March the 12th, 2009 at 12:09 pm. On March the 12th, 2009 at 12:11 pm, an entity with an almost identical electrochemical makeup to Joe A, existing in an almost identical place (we'd usually call him the same person, but let's be more general and call him Joe B) gets run over by a cement mixer and is no longer "living". That which is Joe A may exist elsewhere in the universe, and we would call him "living". So may Joe B, who is not "living". One of the reasons I started this thread was because this is an idea I wanted to explore. It's way too hard for me to wrap my mind around right now, though, and my brain is already fried from work, so I think I'll have to punt on this one. It's almost as hard as the related question, "what is life"?

In that case, how do you define "I" in a way that is not satisfied by your electrochemical clone? Remember, we're assuming nothing supernatural for the sake of this argument.

Say it how you will. Whatever entity you are referring to, my point is that an electromagnetic clone of the entity is the entity ... by any reasonable non-supernatural definition you can come up with. It is no more a lifeless mix of chemicals than was the original entity. Maybe we're just arguing semantics here.

I am using a non-supernatural definition of "experiences" here. That is, the sum of Joe's life experiences are just what he thinks they are according to his body's electrochemical properties, which will exist in an identical form elsewhere in the universe if the assumptions I have stated previously are true. There is no need for two people to exist in the same place or time to have the same "experiences". There is also no need for their surroundings to be the same.According to my arguments, there may very well be a Joe B existing elsewhere in the universe who is not about to be squished. If you disagree with the science of the arguments then please tell me what you think is wrong with them. Or if you don't understand them then please speak up and I will try again to explain.Edited by fgarb, : switching electromagnetic to electrochemical for correctness