I would define you in 4 dimensions, so if you can imagine a 4d blob of yourself as your traverse time throughout your entire existence, as well as how you came to be and how you are disposed of when you die (which worms eat you, where they go afterwards etc.) And I think you can consider that another version of 'you'. Though I grant other, less exacting definitions of 'you' would probably pass muster for other people. But I think it's equally incumbent upon you to have to clearly define what you mean by 'you' to prove that there isn't another one out there. Delving into natural language definition and semantics seems to be the crux of your entire argument. If this becomes a debate over semantical definitions then this debate becomes completely asinine. You're basically saying that even if a copy exists, it's not you because its a copy... okay... maybe you can move yourself to get past your self imposed semantical restriction and ponder the actual argument. Because what you're doing is splitting hairs that don't matter.