45

# Can Any Two Things Be Identical???

Fido

1
Sat 3 Jul, 2010 04:22 pm
@mark noble,
It is not the place from which a thing is viewed, nor the time within certain limits that effects identity... Samual Clemens and Mark twain are not identical, but equal, and the Morning Star and Evening Star are equal, the same... Perspective does not change that fact... When a thing is identical it is the same as its class... No two lines are equal, and if they were there would be no way to prove that fact conclusively, yet each are lines by definition, and so identical, and no change in length can alter that fact... Change over time is a given...Mark Twain old was Mark Twain young......
kennethamy

1
Sat 3 Jul, 2010 04:34 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

It is not the place from which a thing is viewed, nor the time within certain limits that effects identity... Samual Clemens and Mark twain are not identical, but equal, and the Morning Star and Evening Star are equal, the same... Perspective does not change that fact... When a thing is identical it is the same as its class... No two lines are equal, and if they were there would be no way to prove that fact conclusively, yet each are lines by definition, and so identical, and no change in length can alter that fact... Change over time is a given...Mark Twain old was Mark Twain young......

Sorry. I don't know the difference between "identical" and "equal". You will have to explain that. But Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens were one and the same person; and The Evening Star and The Morning Star were one an the same body. So. forgetting about "equal" and "identical" for the moment, I suppose you will agree with that. So far as I understand the term, "identical" it means, "one and the same". And, as I pointed out, Sam Clemens and Mark Twain were one and the same person, and The Evening Star and The Morning Star are one and the same body (namely, the planet Venus). So, Sam Clemens, and Mark Twain were identical; and The Evening Star and the Morning Star are identical bodies (both Venus). Therefore what you claimed was obviously true, that no two things are identical, looks more and more as if it is false (obvious or not).
mark noble

1
Sat 3 Jul, 2010 04:52 pm
Hi All!

This thread is about two PHYSICAL objects and their relationship with one another. They are seperate objects. They can be labelled any way you choose, and in any language. What here is to be determined is whether two seperate physical objects in this universe are, with all parameters previously defined, exact with each other in EVERY way.

Kind regards!
Mark...
William

1
Sat 3 Jul, 2010 06:02 pm
The answer you seek is no. The instance anything is disturbed to seek an answer to that question, everything changes.

William
mark noble

1
Sat 3 Jul, 2010 06:06 pm
@William,
Hi William!

As I also believe.

Thank you, and have a great day!
Mark...
0 Replies

Fido

1
Sat 3 Jul, 2010 07:36 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi All!

This thread is about two PHYSICAL objects and their relationship with one another. They are seperate objects. They can be labelled any way you choose, and in any language. What here is to be determined is whether two seperate physical objects in this universe are, with all parameters previously defined, exact with each other in EVERY way.

Kind regards!
Mark...

Our ability to understand nature is so limited that even if such a thing were theoretically possible we would be precluded by our ignorance from verifying it... We only understand nature by analogy, after all, as our concepts are...
0 Replies

north

1
Sat 3 Jul, 2010 09:09 pm

two hydrogen atoms are identical
William

3
Mon 5 Jul, 2010 05:24 am
@north,
north wrote:

two hydrogen atoms are identical

As much as we can observe, yes.

William
Fido

1
Mon 5 Jul, 2010 12:59 pm
@William,
William wrote:

north wrote:

two hydrogen atoms are identical

As much as we can observe, yes.

William
Identity stands between blindness and uncertainty... It is only as good as it is useful, and in the case of hydrogen, its potential use is great...
0 Replies

Owen phil

1
Tue 6 Jul, 2010 05:18 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

It is not the place from which a thing is viewed, nor the time within certain limits that effects identity... Samual Clemens and Mark twain are not identical, but equal, and the Morning Star and Evening Star are equal, the same... Perspective does not change that fact... When a thing is identical it is the same as its class... No two lines are equal, and if they were there would be no way to prove that fact conclusively, yet each are lines by definition, and so identical, and no change in length can alter that fact... Change over time is a given...Mark Twain old was Mark Twain young......

Sorry. I don't know the difference between "identical" and "equal". You will have to explain that. But Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens were one and the same person; and The Evening Star and The Morning Star were one an the same body. So. forgetting about "equal" and "identical" for the moment, I suppose you will agree with that. So far as I understand the term, "identical" it means, "one and the same". And, as I pointed out, Sam Clemens and Mark Twain were one and the same person, and The Evening Star and The Morning Star are one and the same body (namely, the planet Venus). So, Sam Clemens, and Mark Twain were identical; and The Evening Star and the Morning Star are identical bodies (both Venus). Therefore what you claimed was obviously true, that no two things are identical, looks more and more as if it is false (obvious or not).

If we assume that all names are unique referring names then a=b is false,
that is, only a=a is true. In this case, no two distinct names refer to the same (identical) object.
But, Mark Twain can be understood as a psuedo name, as a description of.. the author of Sam Clemens' stories. In this case (Sam Clemens) = (the author of Sam Clemens' stories) is true. That is we can say that: (Mark Twain)= (Sam Clemens), is true.

Likewise, (the first visible star in the morning) = (the first visible star in the evening) is true.
Astronomy confirmed that: (the first visible star in the morning) = Venus, and (the first star visible in the evening) = Venus, is true.

((the first visible star in the morning) = Venus & (the first visible star in the evening) = Venus) -> (the first visible star in the morning) = (the first star visible in the evening), is logically true.
Therefore,
(the first visible star in the morning) = (the first visible star in the evening), is true.
The psuedo-names "Morning Star" and "Evening Star" are not required to express this identity.
Sentience

2
Tue 6 Jul, 2010 07:58 am
@William,
No, they're not. Unless they exist in the same place, same location, and in the same dimensions, which would either be physically impossible or just be one hydrogen atom.
Owen phil

1
Tue 6 Jul, 2010 08:41 am
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:

No, they're not. Unless they exist in the same place, same location, and in the same dimensions, which would either be physically impossible or just be one hydrogen atom.

I agree. But, I think we can provide different senses to identity by restricting certain exceptions.
For example: Lets call a thing that is the same in every way except location, equality rather than identity. Then we can talk about material things as equal but not identical.
Equivalence relations other than identity seem useful to me, how about you?
0 Replies

Fido

1
Tue 6 Jul, 2010 02:09 pm
Can anyone see that a single object in time is the equal of itself, and that any member of a single class covered by a single concept and name is identical... We could not begin to reason on any subject if things were not identical to their class... Is a dog a dog, is a cat a cat, is a planet a planet, or a hydrogen atom a hydrogen atom???We would be done for if we could not classify on the basis of identity.... Knowledge is judgement, and identity is a fundamental judgement upon a given reality, and without that, everything would be new, and phenomenal; which is to say, useless- since no judgement could be made upon naything..
0 Replies

William

1
Thu 8 Jul, 2010 09:38 am
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:

No, they're not. Unless they exist in the same place, same location, and in the same dimensions, which would either be physically impossible or just be one hydrogen atom.

Hello Sentience, one hydrogen atom, by observation is identical to any other hydrogen atom as far as we can observe. The key word here is "observe". The second we invade one, then the two are not identical. One is not as it was before we invaded it or disturbed it. Then we have more to observe redefining it and the sum of it's parts. We can keep doing this for ever as we will discover there is no empty space.

William
0 Replies

TuringEquivalent

1
Thu 8 Jul, 2010 09:47 am
@mark noble,
yes. It is a symmetry of nature that every proton are the same etc...
William

1
Thu 8 Jul, 2010 10:10 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:

Yes. It is a symmetry of nature that every proton are the same etc...

Yes, TE and it could be said we are the ONLY ones out of shape. all things considered.

William
0 Replies

William

1
Thu 8 Jul, 2010 10:13 am
@Owen phil,
Owen phil wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

It is not the place from which a thing is viewed, nor the time within certain limits that effects identity... Samual Clemens and Mark twain are not identical, but equal, and the Morning Star and Evening Star are equal, the same... Perspective does not change that fact... When a thing is identical it is the same as its class... No two lines are equal, and if they were there would be no way to prove that fact conclusively, yet each are lines by definition, and so identical, and no change in length can alter that fact... Change over time is a given...Mark Twain old was Mark Twain young......

Sorry. I don't know the difference between "identical" and "equal". You will have to explain that. But Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens were one and the same person; and The Evening Star and The Morning Star were one an the same body. So. forgetting about "equal" and "identical" for the moment, I suppose you will agree with that. So far as I understand the term, "identical" it means, "one and the same". And, as I pointed out, Sam Clemens and Mark Twain were one and the same person, and The Evening Star and The Morning Star are one and the same body (namely, the planet Venus). So, Sam Clemens, and Mark Twain were identical; and The Evening Star and the Morning Star are identical bodies (both Venus). Therefore what you claimed was obviously true, that no two things are identical, looks more and more as if it is false (obvious or not).

If we assume that all names are unique referring names then a=b is false,
that is, only a=a is true. In this case, no two distinct names refer to the same (identical) object.
But, Mark Twain can be understood as a psuedo name, as a description of.. the author of Sam Clemens' stories. In this case (Sam Clemens) = (the author of Sam Clemens' stories) is true. That is we can say that: (Mark Twain)= (Sam Clemens), is true.

Likewise, (the first visible star in the morning) = (the first visible star in the evening) is true.
Astronomy confirmed that: (the first visible star in the morning) = Venus, and (the first star visible in the evening) = Venus, is true.

((the first visible star in the morning) = Venus & (the first visible star in the evening) = Venus) -> (the first visible star in the morning) = (the first star visible in the evening), is logically true.
Therefore,
(the first visible star in the morning) = (the first visible star in the evening), is true.
The psuedo-names "Morning Star" and "Evening Star" are not required to express this identity.

Kudos Owen, well explained.

William
0 Replies

JLNobody

1
Fri 9 Jul, 2010 02:22 pm
@jeeprs,
Jeeprs, I think that identities do not exist in nature. If two "things" were identical they would be the same thing. Even two pennies are only FORMALLY the same which is to say that they are are more like each other than any other form of coin for practical purposes.
We must, for practical necessity, think in terms of classes of (formally identical) things (hence the necessity of language), but reality consists of particulars, of concrete unique events.
I dislike the term "things" when discussing matters philosophical (rigour).
Imagine that we could identify and abstract one after another all the properties of a thing, say the redness, roundness, weight, taste (for certain humans) , atomic structure, etc, etc. of an apple. When all the properties were removed would we be left with empty "thingness"? What an absurd question.
kennethamy

1
Fri 9 Jul, 2010 06:00 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

If two "things" were identical they would be the same thing.

Now, if only you had a good argument for that, you would be all set.
Fido

1
Fri 9 Jul, 2010 10:44 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Jeeprs, I think that identities do not exist in nature. If two "things" were identical they would be the same thing. Even two pennies are only FORMALLY the same which is to say that they are are more like each other than any other form of coin for practical purposes.
We must, for practical necessity, think in terms of classes of (formally identical) things (hence the necessity of language), but reality consists of particulars, of concrete unique events.
I dislike the term "things" when discussing matters philosophical (rigour).
Imagine that we could identify and abstract one after another all the properties of a thing, say the redness, roundness, weight, taste (for certain humans) , atomic structure, etc, etc. of an apple. When all the properties were removed would we be left with empty "thingness"? What an absurd question.

The concept of identity only exists in the mind... Identical things do exist in nature... All trees are identical... We know that forests are made of trees of various kinds that are no less trees for that fact... Pennies are identical; and the fact is pretty obvious... All facts are identical too, and ding dongs who cannot figure out the meaning of identity...No one would know nothing without identity...
0 Replies

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz