Can Any Two Things Be Identical???

ACB wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

After all, why could there not (to use Leibniz's example) be two (numerically two) different leaves which happened to have the very same properties?

Because if there were two, they would have to be in different positions at any particular moment. For example, they may be lying side by side at time T. Then leaf 1 would have the property of being on the left (from my point of view) at that moment, and not on the right. Leaf 2 would have the property of being on the right and not on the left. Therefore, they would have different properties.

Right. And that assumes that spatial location is a property (as well as temporal location). But that is exactly the assumption that was questioned by Leibniz (see his correspondence with Samuel Clark who was Newton's secretary. Newton held the "empty bucket theory of space and time" better known as absolute space and time). Leibniz held that space and time were relational properties. And, apparently, Leibniz has won out, since that is the view of modern physics too.

Hi Filipe,
I must correct you there. WE haven't got it backwards!
Others have.

Best wishes Filipe.
Mark...

kennethamy wrote:

ACB wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

After all, why could there not (to use Leibniz's example) be two (numerically two) different leaves which happened to have the very same properties?

Because if there were two, they would have to be in different positions at any particular moment. For example, they may be lying side by side at time T. Then leaf 1 would have the property of being on the left (from my point of view) at that moment, and not on the right. Leaf 2 would have the property of being on the right and not on the left. Therefore, they would have different properties.

Right. And that assumes that spatial location is a property (as well as temporal location). But that is exactly the assumption that was questioned by Leibniz (see his correspondence with Samuel Clark who was Newton's secretary. Newton held the "empty bucket theory of space and time" better known as absolute space and time). Leibniz held that space and time were relational properties. And, apparently, Leibniz has won out, since that is the view of modern physics too.

I don't think my argument requires absolute space and time. It can expressed purely in terms of relations between objects. Imagine two (supposedly) identical leaves such that one lies on top of the other. A raindrop then hits the top leaf. That leaf will then have the property of being hit by the raindrop, and the other will not.

This can be generalised as follows: Two objects A and B must have different relations to at least one other object. For example, if A and B have equal mass and are propelled towards object C with exactly the same force, one must reach C before the other (unless C is equidistant from them, in which case we can pick another object, D, which is not equidistant from A and B). (Of course, relativity theory complicates matters slightly, but I don't think it undermines the general point of my argument.)

Classification only go so far in length, being a dog or whatever...On the contrary Reality has what exists goes all the way in length...this including our thoughts as part of our physical reality, our imagination has something that actually happens in our physical brains as also a part of reality...what else is there to compare to if we jump beyond the strict sense of words ?
In absolute terms everything is perfect and unique... an intertwined meta phenomena were the singular thing meets the plurality of existence and equals it in a dialectical meta relation to position itself in relative terms when to be specific to any of its parts. The Holistic result of that endless catalogue of relations between one thing and all the others there is makes it perfectly equal to the Whole itself and therefore not transcendeble in concept potential !

ACB wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

ACB wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

After all, why could there not (to use Leibniz's example) be two (numerically two) different leaves which happened to have the very same properties?

Because if there were two, they would have to be in different positions at any particular moment. For example, they may be lying side by side at time T. Then leaf 1 would have the property of being on the left (from my point of view) at that moment, and not on the right. Leaf 2 would have the property of being on the right and not on the left. Therefore, they would have different properties.

Right. And that assumes that spatial location is a property (as well as temporal location). But that is exactly the assumption that was questioned by Leibniz (see his correspondence with Samuel Clark who was Newton's secretary. Newton held the "empty bucket theory of space and time" better known as absolute space and time). Leibniz held that space and time were relational properties. And, apparently, Leibniz has won out, since that is the view of modern physics too.

I don't think my argument requires absolute space and time. It can expressed purely in terms of relations between objects. Imagine two (supposedly) identical leaves such that one lies on top of the other. A raindrop then hits the top leaf. That leaf will then have the property of being hit by the raindrop, and the other will not.

This can be generalised as follows: Two objects A and B must have different relations to at least one other object. For example, if A and B have equal mass and are propelled towards object C with exactly the same force, one must reach C before the other (unless C is equidistant from them, in which case we can pick another object, D, which is not equidistant from A and B). (Of course, relativity theory complicates matters slightly, but I don't think it undermines the general point of my argument.)

But how could you tell one was lying on top of the other, for you would have to distinguish them to do that?

I don't think my argument requires absolute space and time. It can expressed purely in terms of relations between objects. Imagine two (supposedly) identical leaves such that one lies on top of the other. A raindrop then hits the top leaf. That leaf will then have the property of being hit by the raindrop, and the other will not.

This can be generalised as follows: Two objects A and B must have different relations to at least one other object. For example, if A and B have equal mass and are propelled towards object C with exactly the same force, one must reach C before the other (unless C is equidistant from them, in which case we can pick another object, D, which is not equidistant from A and B). (Of course, relativity theory complicates matters slightly, but I don't think it undermines the general point of my argument.)

Reality is Perfect not the concepts...it should be so obvious...actually is ironical that we get it backwards...

Hi Filipe,
I must correct you there. WE haven't got it backwards!
Others have.

Best wishes Filipe.
Mark...

If one leaf has a raindrop on it and the other doesn't, they're not identical.

ACB wrote:

I don't think my argument requires absolute space and time. It can expressed purely in terms of relations between objects. Imagine two (supposedly) identical leaves such that one lies on top of the other. A raindrop then hits the top leaf. That leaf will then have the property of being hit by the raindrop, and the other will not.

This can be generalised as follows: Two objects A and B must have different relations to at least one other object. For example, if A and B have equal mass and are propelled towards object C with exactly the same force, one must reach C before the other (unless C is equidistant from them, in which case we can pick another object, D, which is not equidistant from A and B). (Of course, relativity theory complicates matters slightly, but I don't think it undermines the general point of my argument.)

If one leaf has a raindrop on it and the other doesn't, they're not identical. If you say that being at point A is a property of one of the leaves, isn't that absolute space again?

Arjuna wrote:

If one leaf has a raindrop on it and the other doesn't, they're not identical.

If one legivenaf's contact with an object (a raindrop) makes them non-identical, it follows that, before the raindrop falls, the other leaf's contact with an object (the ground) already makes them non-identical. If they were floating in the air, they would be in contact with non-identical configurations of air molecules. Even if they were suspended in a vacuum, the combination of the earth's, moon's and sun's gravitational pull on them would be very slightly different, depending on their position. The mere presence of other objects is enough to make the leaves non-identical. Two separate but identical leaves could only occur in an otherwise totally empty universe.

Hi Fido,
I do see all these things as 'Perfect'. Perfect representations of themselves. I didn't say they were 'Good' or 'Bad'.

I think you may be mistaking how I perceive perfection, or I may be describing it wrong.

Kind regards.
Mark...

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Reality is Perfect not the concepts...it should be so obvious...actually is ironical that we get it backwards...

Reality is what it is, and to be perfect it must be conceived of as such... We are what we are and we live in the real world that is what it is... But to understand it we must conceive of it, and if you do so as perfect by way of your concept of perfection based upon nature, or reality as perfect, then more power to you... I just thing that a'priori judgement is not exactly philosophy since most would reserve judgement, and so reserve a dynamic relationship with reality... It is an infinite after all, what it is, and in such matters we always have our moral fingers on the scale... We are too involved to judge fairly...

two hydrogen atoms are identical

north wrote:

two hydrogen atoms are identical

I would like to see you prove it...