Can Any Two Things Be Identical???

ACB wrote:

Two separate but identical leaves could only occur in an otherwise totally empty universe.

Does anyone here disagree with the above? If so, I'd like to know your reasons. (I am using the word "identical" to mean "exactly the same as each other", not merely "of the same class". Let's not get sidetracked by an argument over language.)

If you give up absolute space, can the distance between objects be absolute?

Some, in an effort to shut the door on metaphysics, will define identity this way: "a reflexive relation that confers subsitutivity." This is saying that identity is merely a matter of verbage.

As Fido mentioned, we could realize that sameness vs. difference are fixtures of the mind. Utilized like a pattern on experience. Both are omnipresent in thought... affecting every object of thought.

We could radically re-picture time and blame meaning itself for the paradox. That creates another paradox though, I think.

No, but it can be relative. If you have two separate but supposedly "identical" objects A1 and A2, you can always find an object B such that the distance from A1 to B is unequal to the distance between A2 and B.

"The relation of total sameness" would be a more concise definition of identity..

We could radically re-picture time and blame meaning itself for the paradox. That creates another paradox though, I think.

ACB wrote:

No, but it can be relative. If you have two separate but supposedly "identical" objects A1 and A2, you can always find an object B such that the distance from A1 to B is unequal to the distance between A2 and B.

Makes sense to me.

ACB wrote:

"The relation of total sameness" would be a more concise definition of identity..

I'm not sure what that means.

That fireman is John.

That is a reflexive relation conferring substitutivity.

Arjuna wrote:

We could radically re-picture time and blame meaning itself for the paradox. That creates another paradox though, I think.

I didn't see where you had addressed the issue of identity and time in a way that supports common sense.

what does any of this have to do with the object its self , though ?

north wrote:

what does any of this have to do with the object its self , though ?

I have no idea what you're asking. S'been a long day... catch you later..

Ken...you surely know that a unit, a bit, whatever that bit may be is mathematically infinitely dividable...Godel explains it quite well, just peak any number and do it...

So this raises a problem to the OP. How can two infinities be equal ?
A infinite dynamic process of definition that can´t ever end imply´s that something is not ever really concluded objectively...

...Are you now in my wave frequency ?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Ken...you surely know that a unit, a bit, whatever that bit may be is mathematically infinitely dividable...Godel explains it quite well, just peak any number and do it...

So this raises a problem to the OP. How can two infinities be equal ?
A infinite dynamic process of definition that can´t ever end imply´s that something is not ever really concluded objectively...

...Are you now in my wave frequency ?

Do you understand the concept of one, or of the individual??? The word says not divisable, and all numbers as signs are in ratio to one... But one is not one because it is fully equal to an other one... It is based upon what cannot be less than one, in a living sense... We counted first what could be counted: people, animals, living individuals... Just think before you say divide of how you are phrasing your answer... You can divide arbatrary units, but not individual... A pound of flour or a pound of bread can be divided, though not equally; but in a mathamatica sense one half, three quarters, one quarter are all presented as a restatement of an original and unsolvable problem: 1/2, 3/4, 1/4... These are not answers but questions until they are tied to a specific divisable unit... If numbers are just numbers following their own logic then you can do or say as you please... Applied to reality, only one number is real, and that is one, and nothing exists below that quantity, or above it... Two ones is two, three ones is three... Do you see what I mean??? You cannot have half a person, or half a dog, or even half of an apple... To divide some things is to destroy their identity since they cannot be made whole... One is an identity, and as an identity it is also a concept...

Two separate but identical leaves could only occur in an otherwise totally empty universe.

Quote:

Two separate but identical leaves could only occur in an otherwise totally empty universe.

Even then, they would have to exist in separate otherwise empty universes, because the gravitational pull on each other would make them asymmetrical. For example, in order for them to be identical, they must be facing the same way. However, if they are both facing the same way and we labeled a front and a back on both of them, which would be identical, the gravitational pull of A to B would be on the Bs left, while from B to A would be on A's right.

Sentience wrote:

Quote:

Two separate but identical leaves could only occur in an otherwise totally empty universe.

Even then, they would have to exist in separate otherwise empty universes, because the gravitational pull on each other would make them asymmetrical. For example, in order for them to be identical, they must be facing the same way. However, if they are both facing the same way and we labeled a front and a back on both of them, which would be identical, the gravitational pull of A to B would be on the Bs left, while from B to A would be on A's right.

But that is only because you count spatial properties as real properties. Should we do so? Suppose one leaf has every property the other leaf has except that we call one of the leaves "A", and the other leaf, "B". So the two leaves have every property in common except their designations. Should we count the fact that they have different designations as properties, so that the mere fact that one is called "A" and the other, "B" is enough to make them two leaves even if they share all their other properties?

Hi Everyone,
Can you think of any two things that are identical to one another in every way?
This is an ongoing research question, and all your answers will be gratefully received.
Thank you.
Mark...

kennethamy wrote:

Sentience wrote:

Quote:

Two separate but identical leaves could only occur in an otherwise totally empty universe.

Even then, they would have to exist in separate otherwise empty universes, because the gravitational pull on each other would make them asymmetrical. For example, in order for them to be identical, they must be facing the same way. However, if they are both facing the same way and we labeled a front and a back on both of them, which would be identical, the gravitational pull of A to B would be on the Bs left, while from B to A would be on A's right.

But that is only because you count spatial properties as real properties. Should we do so? Suppose one leaf has every property the other leaf has except that we call one of the leaves "A", and the other leaf, "B". So the two leaves have every property in common except their designations. Should we count the fact that they have different designations as properties, so that the mere fact that one is called "A" and the other, "B" is enough to make them two leaves even if they share all their other properties?

I now pronounce this thread DOA... PLease continue CPR on it Kenney, at least until after it is buried... Some times the obvious is never obvious enough...

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Sentience wrote:

Quote:

Two separate but identical leaves could only occur in an otherwise totally empty universe.

Even then, they would have to exist in separate otherwise empty universes, because the gravitational pull on each other would make them asymmetrical. For example, in order for them to be identical, they must be facing the same way. However, if they are both facing the same way and we labeled a front and a back on both of them, which would be identical, the gravitational pull of A to B would be on the Bs left, while from B to A would be on A's right.

But that is only because you count spatial properties as real properties. Should we do so? Suppose one leaf has every property the other leaf has except that we call one of the leaves "A", and the other leaf, "B". So the two leaves have every property in common except their designations. Should we count the fact that they have different designations as properties, so that the mere fact that one is called "A" and the other, "B" is enough to make them two leaves even if they share all their other properties?

I now pronounce this thread DOA... PLease continue CPR on it Kenney, at least until after it is buried... Some times the obvious is never obvious enough...

Apparently it isn't, especially when it not only is not obvious what is supposed to be obvious, but I don't even know what you think is obvious.

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Sentience wrote:

Quote:

Two separate but identical leaves could only occur in an otherwise totally empty universe.

Even then, they would have to exist in separate otherwise empty universes, because the gravitational pull on each other would make them asymmetrical. For example, in order for them to be identical, they must be facing the same way. However, if they are both facing the same way and we labeled a front and a back on both of them, which would be identical, the gravitational pull of A to B would be on the Bs left, while from B to A would be on A's right.

But that is only because you count spatial properties as real properties. Should we do so? Suppose one leaf has every property the other leaf has except that we call one of the leaves "A", and the other leaf, "B". So the two leaves have every property in common except their designations. Should we count the fact that they have different designations as properties, so that the mere fact that one is called "A" and the other, "B" is enough to make them two leaves even if they share all their other properties?

I now pronounce this thread DOA... PLease continue CPR on it Kenney, at least until after it is buried... Some times the obvious is never obvious enough...

Apparently it isn't, especially when it not only is not obvious what is supposed to be obvious, but I don't even know what you think is obvious.

I don't think absolute identity is obviously impossible... I know it is obviously impossible... If two things are different they cannot be equal... A thing can only be equal to itself, which is identity... If a dog is a dog it is equal to itself because it is what it is by identity, but that does not imply some absolute equality as it would were we talking of an absolute volume of water in one containor divided between two... Its place has changed but mass is conserved, which is again identity... If change of place negates equality then there is no such thing because only relative to the earth does anything stay in the same place while earth and everything all move together... If change of time negates equality then there is no such thing because time changes for all things equally, and only by changing place can anything change in time relative to something other... Identity is the most essential principal to all reasoning, and is one most children have mastered to some extent by school age... To make one conscious of a principal all find necessary, though held unconciously, may seem worthy, but from my perspective you are the blind leading the blind... An obvious fact cannot be made more obvious than ones consciousness can make it...

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Sentience wrote:

Quote:

Two separate but identical leaves could only occur in an otherwise totally empty universe.

Even then, they would have to exist in separate otherwise empty universes, because the gravitational pull on each other would make them asymmetrical. For example, in order for them to be identical, they must be facing the same way. However, if they are both facing the same way and we labeled a front and a back on both of them, which would be identical, the gravitational pull of A to B would be on the Bs left, while from B to A would be on A's right.

But that is only because you count spatial properties as real properties. Should we do so? Suppose one leaf has every property the other leaf has except that we call one of the leaves "A", and the other leaf, "B". So the two leaves have every property in common except their designations. Should we count the fact that they have different designations as properties, so that the mere fact that one is called "A" and the other, "B" is enough to make them two leaves even if they share all their other properties?

I now pronounce this thread DOA... PLease continue CPR on it Kenney, at least until after it is buried... Some times the obvious is never obvious enough...

Apparently it isn't, especially when it not only is not obvious what is supposed to be obvious, but I don't even know what you think is obvious.

I don't think absolute identity is obviously impossible... I know it is obviously impossible... If two things are different they cannot be equal... A thing can only be equal to itself, which is identity... If a dog is a dog it is equal to itself because it is what it is by identity, but that does not imply some absolute equality as it would were we talking of an absolute volume of water in one containor divided between two... Its place has changed but mass is conserved, which is again identity... If change of place negates equality then there is no such thing because only relative to the earth does anything stay in the same place while earth and everything all move together... If change of time negates equality then there is no such thing because time changes for all things equally, and only by changing place can anything change in time relative to something other... Identity is the most essential principal to all reasoning, and is one most children have mastered to some extent by school age... To make one conscious of a principal all find necessary, though held unconciously, may seem worthy, but from my perspective you are the blind leading the blind... An obvious fact cannot be made more obvious than ones consciousness can make it...

So you don't think that Mark Twain and Samuel L. Clemens were identical (one and the same person)? Or that the classic example, that the Morning Star and the Evening Star one identical (one and the came heavenly body)? If that is what you think, then let me inform you that you are mistaken. Mark Twain and Samuel L. Clemens were one and the same person (identical) and The Morning Star and the Evening Star (although at one time thought to be two different heavenly bodies) were discovered both to be the planet Venus which rose in the morning, and then rose again in the evening. So you are mistaken.

Sentience wrote:

Quote:

Two separate but identical leaves could only occur in an otherwise totally empty universe.

Even then, they would have to exist in separate otherwise empty universes, because the gravitational pull on each other would make them asymmetrical. For example, in order for them to be identical, they must be facing the same way. However, if they are both facing the same way and we labeled a front and a back on both of them, which would be identical, the gravitational pull of A to B would be on the Bs left, while from B to A would be on A's right.

But that is only because you count spatial properties as real properties. Should we do so? Suppose one leaf has every property the other leaf has except that we call one of the leaves "A", and the other leaf, "B". So the two leaves have every property in common except their designations. Should we count the fact that they have different designations as properties, so that the mere fact that one is called "A" and the other, "B" is enough to make them two leaves even if they share all their other properties?