Hmm.  I don't doubt that targeted voice-mimicking scams exist (or will soon).  I don't think memorable, reused passwords are likely to work well enough to foil them.  Between forgetting (on the sender or receiver end), claimed ignorance ("Mom,  I'm in jail and really need money, and I'm freaking out!  No, I don't remember what we said the password would be"), and general social hurdles ("that's a weird thing to want"), I don't think it'll catch on.

Instead, I'd look to context-dependent auth (looking for more confidence when the ask is scammer-adjacent), challenge-response (remember our summer in Fiji?), 2FA (let me call the court to provide the bail), or just much more context (5 minutes of casual conversation with a friend or relative is likely hard to really fake, even if the voice is close).

But really, I recommend security mindset and understanding of authorization levels, even if authentication isn't the main worry.  Most friends, even close ones, shouldn't be allowed to ask you to mail $500 in gift cards to a random address, even if they prove they are really themselves.

In deep meditation people become disconnected from reality

Only metaphorically, not really disconnected.  In truth, in deep meditation, the conscious attention is not focused on physical perceptions, but that mind is still contained in and part of the same reality.

This may be the primary crux of my disagreement with the post.  People are part of reality, not just connected to it.  Dualism is false, there is no non-physical part of being.  The thing that has experiences, thoughts, and qualia is a bounded segment of the universe, not a thing separate or separable from it.

Is your mind causally disconnected from the actual universe?  That's the only way I can understand the merging of minds that share some similarities (but are absolutely not identical across universes that aren't themselves identical).  Your forgetting may make two possible minds superficially the same, but they're simply not identical.

I don't know why you think path-based configuration of brain state would be false.  That may not be "identity" for all purposes - there may be purposes for which it doesn't suffice or is too restrictive, but it's probably good for this case.

If you have the memories of every single human up to that point, then you don't know which of them you are.

This depends on the mechanism of attaining all these memories.  In that world, it COULD be that you still know which memories are privileged, or at least which ones include meeting God and being in position to be asked the question. 

I mean, I'm with you fundamentally: it's not obvious that ANYTHING is truly objective - other people can report experiences, but that's mediated by your perceptions as well. In most cases, one can avoid the confusion by specifying predicting WHAT experiences will happen to WHICH observer.

My recommended way to resolve (aka disambiguate) definitional questions is "use more words".  Common understandings can be short, but unusual contexts require more signals to communicate.

I actually upvoted, but mostly because it was a hook for comedy, because it's so common a trope (the surprise value of taking something literally).  If it weren't for that, I'd probably have just passed, rather than downvoting, but I find it pretty low-value overall.

Some mix of "obvious parts are obvious, non-obvious parts are some mix of pretentious and and suspect."  I'd actually enjoy a (somewhat) deeper exploration of your agreement or disagreement with the Wittgenstein framing of this phrase, and the value of invoking cultural tropes.  Personally, this isn't one I'm confident enough to use, but there are other hyperbolic ideas I use for emphasis or humor, and I generally agree that communication is multimodal and contextual, much more than objective semantic content. 

Where do you even put the 10^100 objects you're iterating through?  What made you pick 10^100 as the scale of difficulty?  I mean, even though you've ignored parallelism and the sheer number of processing pipelines available to simultaneously handle things, that's only a dozen orders of magnitude, not 100.   Exponents go up fast.

So, to answer your title, "no, I cannot".  Fortunately, I CAN abstract and model that many objects, if they're similar in most of the ways that matter to me.  The earth, for instance, has about 10^50 atoms (note: that's not half the size of your example, it's 1/10^50 the size).  And I can make a fair number of predictions about it.  And there's a LOT of behavior I can't.

[epistemic status: just what I've read in popular-ish press, no actual knowledge nor expertise]

Two main mechanisms that I know of:

- Some cancers are caused (or enabled, or activated, or something) by viruses, and there's been immense progress in tailoring vaccines for specific viruses.

- Some cancers seem to be susceptible to targeted immune response (tailored antibodies).  Vaccines for these cancers enable one's body to reduce or eliminate spread of the cancer.

Note that everything is relative and marginal ("compared to what, for what increment?").  I don't think "favor" is the right word for surplus from trade, as it goes in both directions, and is unmeasurable.  If you buy a car for $66K, the dealer makes $11k profit, but also has effort and employment costs, so that's not net.  And you're getting more than $66k of value in owning the car (or you wouldn't have bought it - you're not intending to do a favor, just making a trade that benefits you and happens to benefit them).  So they're doing you a favor as much as you doing them one.  

Which is to say that the "favor" framing isn't very helpful, except in motivational terms - you may purposfully take a worse trade than you otherwise could, in order to benefit some specific person (or even a group, if you're weirdly altruistic enough).  But most economic analysis assumes this is a very small part of trade and work choices.

The key insight in figuring out the work and purchase decisions is that most things have different values to different people.  A given hour of effort in an endeavor you're relatively skilled at ("work") is worth some amount to you, and some amount to an employer.  It's worth more to an employer than to you, and your pay for that hour will be between those values.  For simplification reasons, and measurement difficulty, and preference for stability, it's usually traded in bundles - agreement to work 40+ hours per week for multiple weeks.  That doesn't change the underlying difference in valuation as the main transactional motivation.