Can Any Two Things Be Identical???

Spatio-temporal continuity is certainly a necessary condition of identity, and may even be a sufficient condition of identity (and persistence through change).

The river after change is spatio-temporally continuous with the river before change; and the infant is spatio-temporally continuous with the adult. Spatio-temporal continuity is certainly a necessary condition of identity, and may even be a sufficient condition of identity (and persistence through change).

There are many logical truths about identity that are shown to be true, with the aid of these "nonsense" claims of Leibnitz.

Hi Arjuna,
Thank you for joining in, by the way!

Would it also be correct to say: Every "individual example" can be perfect. Perfection is the equivalence to the ideal?

Have a brilliant day.
mark...

kennethamy wrote:

Spatio-temporal continuity is certainly a necessary condition of identity, and may even be a sufficient condition of identity (and persistence through change).

Hardly. Of course you cannot argue that the spatiotemporal continuity of an electron's wave function is rather non existent, yet this being the case, it still draws no implication that we should question the electron as being a different electron from its original self, let alone that the electron has lost any of its identity what so ever.

Whereof are you obtaining this piffle?

I don't know about electrons. But it is pretty clear that spatio-temporal continuity is a necessary condition for the identity of persons or rivers, and it may even be a sufficient condition. Calling it piffle does not make it piffle. And it is certainly no argument.

The indiscernibility of identicals
For any x and y, if x is identical to y, then x and y have all the same properties.
x=y -> (all F)(Fx <-> Fy), for all x and all y.

The identity of indiscernibles
For any x and y, if x and y have all the same properties, then x is identical to y.
(all F)(Fx <-> Fy) -> x=y.

Soul Brother: "What in the world could drive a person to conclude upon such ridiculousness such as these "principles"? Yet more puzzling, what could possibly cause you to presume any truth from such nonsense?"

There are many logical truths about identity that are shown to be true, with the aid of these "nonsense" claims of Leibnitz.

Russell and Whitehead in Principia Mathematica, used these principles to define x=y, *13.01 x=y =df (all F)(Fx <-> Fy).

Some examples of theorems about identity using Libnitz's principles.
1. x=y -> (Gx <-> Gy).
2, ~(Gx <-> Gy) -> ~(x=y).
3. (Gx & ~Gy) -> ~(x=y).
4. ((x=y) & Gx) -> Gy.
5. (x=y & x=z) -> x=z.
6. (x=y & y=z) -> x=z.
etc., etc..

Your understanding of 'nonsense' needs clarification.

Hi Ken,
But is it not the perfect representation of the mongoose that is "it" said mongoose?

Kind regards to you Ken.
Mark...

mark noble wrote:

Hi Arjuna,
Thank you for joining in, by the way!

Would it also be correct to say: Every "individual example" can be perfect. Perfection is the equivalence to the ideal?

Have a brilliant day.
mark...

Every individual example of what can be perfect? I imagine there are lots of individual examples of mongooses none of which is the perfect mongoose (whatever the perfect mongoose might be).

Wrong again.

Two different objects cannot be identical.
If (Fx and ~Fy) then ~(x=y).

kennethamy wrote:

mark noble wrote:

Hi Arjuna,
Thank you for joining in, by the way!

Would it also be correct to say: Every "individual example" can be perfect. Perfection is the equivalence to the ideal?

Have a brilliant day.
mark...

Every individual example of what can be perfect? I imagine there are lots of individual examples of mongooses none of which is the perfect mongoose (whatever the perfect mongoose might be).

And just why are not they perfect ?

Hi Arjuna,
Glad your day is good!

It's just that before we can claim to prove that: No "individual example" can be perfect, we have to conclude the same of the opposite. Everything is, indeed subject to a persons point of view on what "perfection" may or may not be, but each thing MUST be a perfect self-representation due to the fact that it is unique. Don't you agree?

Best wishes
Mark...

mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken,
But is it not the perfect representation of the mongoose that is "it" said mongoose?

Kind regards to you Ken.
Mark...

Perfection is a judgement. Judgement requires comparing two things. One is the standard.... the other is an example. To judge a representation to be perfect... we must have a gold standard for representation. What is that? Then we would need an example of representation. We ask: Is the standard the same as the example?

Of course in order for this judgement to be meaningful, there would have to be the idea of an imperfect representation. If an example can be no other than the same as the standard, then no judgement is possible...we don't have two things to compare to each other. Perfection is a judgement, so in this case perfection doesn't exactly mean anything... unless we fill in the blank on a different definition of perfection...

Hi Filipe,
Thank you! That's a good way to look at it: perfect=Being. imperfect=not being! brilliant! That means that everything is perfect!

I utterly agree!

Kindest of regards to you, filipe.
Mark...

mark noble wrote:

Hi Filipe,
Thank you! That's a good way to look at it: perfect=Being. imperfect=not being! brilliant! That means that everything is perfect!

I utterly agree!

Kindest of regards to you, filipe.
Mark...

If I'm understanding you, I recognize that point of view. The universe now: it's perfect by virtue of not needing to be altered, saved, fixed, corrected... a poetic way to say it is that now is exactly what it's supposed to be. Or another way would be: I fully accept now. Is that close to what you're thinking of?

Ah yes! And this is the best of all possible worlds. It is wonderful! No wars, no disease, no suffering. Have you ever read Candide by Voltaire? I don't suppose you have.