The curious thing about this notion of [incarnate and discarnate][a] and [distance of difference][b] is the question of *why* do processes retain integrity when so many of their constituents change over time?

[a]: http://mindlace.net/index.php?p=8
[b]: http://mindlace.net/index.php?p=6

On the one hand, it appears that all the cards are stacked against you, in the quest for processes that persist over time. You’ve got to build things out of constituents that don’t even have the good graces of being in one place at one time, much less persist over time.

Nonetheless, out of this probablistic stew of elemental particles, somehow atoms arose. Even once you had atoms - and the requisite quantity of fusion to get things a bit more interesting than hydrogen - you’re left with this total mess, a veritable cauldron of brownian motion.

And yet somehow, life has emerged from this mess. One deep reason for this is degeneracy.

Degeneracy is the ability or tendency for biological systems to produce the same or functionally similar output using different processs, as illustrated in [Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems][c].

My suspicion is that this concept of degeneracy can be taken further than biological systems- indeed, can be taken back to the molecules, atoms, and finally particles of which our multiverse is comprised.

For if the many worlds hypothesis holds water, the only way for persistence itself to have meaning is for a certain set of outcomes to occur in more universes than it did not.

Another way of putting it is that [climbing mount improbable][d] is an inevitable consequence of causality; there must be more than one past that led up to this present.

[c]: http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~ma/cclub/edelmangally.pdf
[d]: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393316823/mindlace-20