Disclaimer: Paramount owns the characters and the Star Trek name. I am not making any money off this.
Spoilers: Similitude.
Archive: If you really want to, but please ask.
Added Disclaimer: I'm Aussie, as is my spelling.
A/N: This is a companion piece to Categorising your Life, as requested by some. Thank you for all the positive reviews for Categorising your Life.
Two identical particles. That was what they expected. Perfectly reasonable assumption; genetically identical, same memories. Identical particles, no problems with which one to choose. Their theory was sound, two identical particles can not exist in the same state. Like electrons in an atomic orbital, opposite spins, opposite states. One aware, conscious, continuing their life. The other, unconscious, waiting for their spins to swap. One destined to live, the other to die, it did not matter which. Pauli's Principle obeyed on a grand scale.
But they miscalculated. Had the particles been identical, it would have been fine. However, it is not within nature to create identical beings. Individuality, the thing we treasure the most had crept in, but it took them awhile to notice it. Because the spin up particle wasn't identical to the spin down. The shells of his mind were fuller than mine; he had lived an extra life. Closer to the state nature strives for, nobility. Identical particles no longer, unique instead. Meaning that both can exist, nature's law is not defied, and both can die. But the scientist's hand interfered, trying to recreate what nature denied. One alive, one dead. How do you choose? Non-identical particles. Sacrifice one in radioactive decay to create another with a half-life, but a life. Or add some electrons sacrificed by the other to create a stable form out of a doomed one?
What can possibly make that decision reasonable? How do you choose? Why me? Why not him? Why not the sum, instead of one of the parts?