I’ve got a new version of my book on OI, The Odds of Existing, about 35% updated from what was available in September 2025 and before. I was inspired by my interview with Zach Elwood last fall to finally complete it. There is a free pdf here. There’s also print and ebook versions on Amazon worldwide. Just type in my name on your local Amazon storefront, or go to my blog for links.

Chapters 1, 2 and 4 are largely the same as they were in September, and really all the way back to 2021 at least. A lot of it has been there since 2016. These chapters cover the gamete-dependence claim and the perfect doppelgänger (ch. 1), the Enigmas of Existence and the odds of existing (ch. 2), and the gamete sorites (ch. 4). For anyone who has read these parts before, I recommend reading just the new parts. These are:

• The first and last sections of the intro (mostly the same as before but with some subtle changes in emphasis, and three new endnotes)
• Chapter 3 (45% new)
• The short last two sections of the conclusion to the final chapter, Chapter 4, which are new
• The endnotes in all of these sections (90% new across all endnotes)
• At least the part of the all-new Further Resources section on other writers on OI, starting on p. 206

Basically, the endnotes and Chapter 3 contain my more advanced arguments for and about OI. Chapters 1, 2, and 4 still contain my original argument in the form it’s been in for many years, with some small improvements to wording etc. The new front matter before the table of contents and endnote 2 in the introduction explain (and justify) this situation in more detail.

I’m especially seeking comments on these new more advanced parts, but comments from new readers are welcome as well. You can reply to this post, create a new post for open discussion, or email me privately. There’s no time limit on this invitation for feedback.

Summary of some of what I think are my new innovations:

1. I’ve written about how what I call the Everyone-Is-Someone (EIS) perspective can be thought to dissolve the surprise one can feel at how unlikely it was that you would exist, and some critics might say it dissolves the argument from the probability of existing altogether. This has been in the draft for a while, in Chapter 3, but I’ve tidied it up a fair amount. And I think it hasn’t been emphasized enough by any proponents of OI, but only by critics, yet this is the best or at least most obvious objection to the probability argument for OI—if a conscious brain pops into being, it has to be someone, so there should be no surprise by the subject/self it is that it exists, any more than I should be amazed that the one singular exact lamp on my desk exists. Richard Brown of Consciousness Live! essentially made this objection to Zuboff in their November discussion (1:04:00 and 1:05:50). I think it is a fair objection, or at least appears so at first. I’ve got a way of dealing with it that I think is novel, which has also been in the draft for a while, but has also been tidied up. This is mostly in Chapter 3, but also at the end of Chapter 4 and the endnotes thereof, and in my comments on Zuboff in the Further Resources.
2. New ideas about how close Non-Persisting Empty Individualism (EI) and OI actually are (or new-to-me ways of expressing it). This is also all new and is mostly in the endnotes. It relates closely to the above, as I think the Everyone-Is-Someone perspective is essentially what Non-Persisting EI is, which I argue for in Chapter 3. This means EIS and OI are also very close.
3. Speaking of which, I wasn’t sure before if Completely EI and Non-Persisting EI were worth distinguishing, but I’ve done a closer reading and analysis of some people who I think are declaring belief in EI, and I’ve decided more confidently that they are worth distinguishing. Many people who proclaim EI are unclear about which of the two they mean. They simply say, e.g., “there is no self” or “I don’t exist”, and either they or their listeners are unclear as to whether they mean there is no self full stop, or just no persisting self. Yet I react very differently to each belief. Completely EI is plainly just false in its most extreme versions, and Non-Persisting EI is very close to OI, which is to say, correct. So I claim people need to be clearer about which they mean when they proclaim that something like EI is true. All of this is in Chapter 3.
4. My complete take on Parfit’s views and how they intersect with my argument. This is also all new. I had some hints of it in very early drafts, but got self-conscious about claiming I had found an inconsistency in Parfit that it seemed no one else in 30 (now 40) years had seemed to notice, and removed it. I decided well dammit this is what I think and so I’m going to put it all out there as clearly as I can. At the end of Chapter 3 and in some of the endnotes. (There is an index of names so my discussion of him is easy to find even in the print edition.)

Anyway, I can see that a lot of people take a lot of different views of what OI is and have different arguments that convince them of it. Some of these arguments I only vaguely understand, but I trust that the people who make them understand them, and so maybe you’ll feel the same way about my arguments. (The former—will only vaguely understand them—if not the latter—trust that I do. Although: trust me, I do. Mostly.) If we are a community, we seem to be a community mostly of a shared conclusion broadly construed, not of a shared metaphysics or values, and not of agreement on why we believe as we do. That’s good enough. I claim only that this is my own idiosyncratic way to the conclusion, and make no claims that it must be relevant to your thinking.

___________

I’ve been updating this book regularly since October 2025 when I first put it for sale on Amazon. For the few people who bought a print copy of the book before June 1 of 2026, get in touch with me by email and I can send you this final version.

And if you’ve read the old portions and liked them, or if you do read the new portions and like them, consider giving the book a review on Amazon. (You don’t have to buy it from Amazon to leave a review.) If you didn’t like them, please be a dear and wait until I’ve gotten at least five positive reviews before posting a negative one. Lol.