OK. I think I see where you were trying to go. The term “parallel universe” was throwing me off. To avoid the conundrum that determinism would propose, let’s just call it a similar environmental planet far, far away in the universe developing at the same time as primitive man perhaps 100,000 years ago.
I’m not certain that Judaism would necessarily be all that different, but I see your point. If there are to be things accepted as unique in the entire universe, which I can’t imagine, then the Earth scenario could not turn out the same way. But that leads to what I was trying to say before. To figure out how the other people developed, you would have to specify which things are to be unique, such as Judaism.
What about the inventions? the political ideas? I’m sure much of man’s development was due to weather coincidences. Did the wheel idea come about before the ensuing last ice age and so on.
As far as merely the development of thought, it seems to be that it is generally a predictable progression from much more random chaos to roughly a very foggy and messy structured underlayment of social language and ideologies.
There was a poster here a few years ago who often used the term “planet of the apes in the land of lies”. I don’t think that I would be able to predict what specific things would be different between two very large groups of apes living in their world of lies. Which lies came first? Which stupid thought gained popularity before which other stupid thought? Stupidity is hard to predict.
There is a science puzzle somewhere that proves that due to determinism, there are specific situations that cannot ever be predicted. I image having life on a planet start all over with the countless number of events simultaneously occurring would render any hope for prediction of specificity to be vanquished. If done 10 times, perhaps every instance would produce completely different results, including the complete annihilation of the man like creature in some cases. If the people survive at all, I don’t think that consciousness would come into the picture as a variant at all. The people would have to already have consciousness merely to be called “people”.
Their development of conscience would certainly be varied, but I would think still based upon the same requirements of social interaction. There are fundamental laws involving social interactions which I understand to be universal. There are also universal laws concerning warfare and social manipulation. So I suspect those would also be similar again assuming the people survived the sequence of events (perhaps their second world war ended in a nuclear holocaust).
So I still have to think that unless you point out every specific difference, no calculation would be meaningful. And I think I see why you don’t want to do that. So I guess I’ll have to leave this one alone (probably should have anyway).
Thanks for proposing the idea though. Good luck finding a meaningful answer.