Can Any Two Things Be Identical???

@HexHammer,

Hi Hex!

Why are you disagreeing with the startlingly obvious, are you drunk?

Are you saying that a thing (whatever thing) is not the sum of itself?

Have a lovely day!
Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Why are you disagreeing with the startlingly obvious, are you drunk?

Are you saying that a thing (whatever thing) is not the sum of itself?

I say that what you say, is babble. It is only startlingly obivious to someone who lacks simple rationallity, and "wants to see".

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

mark noble wrote:

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...
No, there's always impurities that will make things different, maybe on the atomic/subatomic lvl.

But that has nothing to do with it. What you point out is that it is very unlikely that two things will have exactly the same properties. But that has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether it is possible for two different things to have exactly the same properties. Don't you see those are just two different questions? You are answering an empirical question, but the issue is a philosophical-logical question. Let me put it another way. Does it make sense to say of two things that they have exactly the same properties? Never mind whether it is empirically possible or not? You are confusing an philosophical issue with an empirical issue. Let me ask again. Does it make sense to suppose that there are two leaves, and they both have exactly the same properties (and never mind whether this could or could not, in fact be the case)?

That is not asked so specific in the initial question. What you say is the form only, not the form and behaviour.

Is it empirically possible there two identical things. I have no idea. Is it logically possible? That is the philosophical issue. The OP did not make that distinction, and his question is, therefore, ambiguous, since the term "can" may mean either empirically possible, or logically possible. You are addressing the first. I am first making the needed distinction, and then I am addressing the second. There is nothing to argue about. It is a fact that there is that distinction.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

RealEyes wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Two things can be identical, zero is identical to zero...

Ah, but those aren't two things. They are two references to one thing. It goes into the idea of tautology.

But the question is about possibility, not about actuality. And why couldn't (say) two leaves on a tree have identical properties? We need not think of actual examples to show that two things could be identical. We need only think of possible examples. (But you are right about the zero example. To say that zero is zero is just to express a tautology).

Until it is proven wrong it is an axiom... Smile

1 Reply

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

RealEyes wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Two things can be identical, zero is identical to zero...

Ah, but those aren't two things. They are two references to one thing. It goes into the idea of tautology.

But the question is about possibility, not about actuality. And why couldn't (say) two leaves on a tree have identical properties? We need not think of actual examples to show that two things could be identical. We need only think of possible examples. (But you are right about the zero example. To say that zero is zero is just to express a tautology).

Until it is proven wrong it is an axiom...

What, is an axiom (whatever that means) until it is proven wrong?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

RealEyes wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Two things can be identical, zero is identical to zero...

Ah, but those aren't two things. They are two references to one thing. It goes into the idea of tautology.

But the question is about possibility, not about actuality. And why couldn't (say) two leaves on a tree have identical properties? We need not think of actual examples to show that two things could be identical. We need only think of possible examples. (But you are right about the zero example. To say that zero is zero is just to express a tautology).

No, the question is whether one has the common sense and intelligence to realize that all concepts and ideas and forms and notions are based upon an identity having nothing what ever to do with perfect equality... A bull and a steer can be identical...A cow and a calf can be identical... Two lines of differeing lengths are clearly identical... One thinks to prove the thing with reason that exists apriori, before reason, and fails. That is, the application of reason does not result in identity but grows out of it, since identity is hypothical... Hypothetically, if all lines are lines, what is the difference between line A and line B....We do not compare apples and oranges because the comparison would be meaningless. We might compare weight with volume to find a ratio which is a conceptual manifold called specific gravity, but then presuming this is a value all matter shares we can use it to compare all elements... This entire argument has grown out of a misunderstanding of the term...Identity is an a'priori presumption on the nature or reality/

0 Replies

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

The 'question', my 'question' IS about actuality. I don't want opinions on the imaginary, I want rational opinions based on actual factors known to be existing.

Kind regards!
Mark...

Perhaps you mean: rationally supported opinions; and even then, Good Luck!

0 Replies

nothing tangible.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

RexRed wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

RealEyes wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Two things can be identical, zero is identical to zero...

Ah, but those aren't two things. They are two references to one thing. It goes into the idea of tautology.

But the question is about possibility, not about actuality. And why couldn't (say) two leaves on a tree have identical properties? We need not think of actual examples to show that two things could be identical. We need only think of possible examples. (But you are right about the zero example. To say that zero is zero is just to express a tautology).

Until it is proven wrong it is an axiom...

What, is an axiom (whatever that means) until it is proven wrong?

From my memory of geometry, an axiom is a mathematical statement that is always true until something proves it false.

For example, equals added to equals are equal.

Or... something with zero length, breath, depth and height is identical to something of zero length, breath, depth and height... Smile

1 Reply

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

Or... something with zero length, breath, depth and height is identical to something of zero length, breath, depth and height... Smile

[/quote]
Hi Rex!

But clearly in a different location in time and space and subject to alternate forces?

Kind regards!
Mark...

0 Replies

In human terms, two things can be identical; we humans do not go through perfection in how we live our lives - nor how we measure physical and mental objects.

If you're interested in minutia, your ability to appreciate what this world is about will be missed; it doesn't matter if "identical twins" are not identical in every way.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Hi Rex!

I utterly disagree. And just because we coin the term 'identical twin' doesn't make it so.

Two physical things cannot occupy the same location in time and space, else they would be one thing. Ergo, being in two alternate locations demands an abscence of identicality.

Kind regards!
Mark...

3 Replies

@mark noble,

You seek endless disagreements with human descriptions and definitions.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Hi Cicerone!

I admit it, I'm Human! Aren't you?

(smiles)
Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

It's not a matter of being human; it's about one's perception of this world.

0 Replies

Well, 1=1 can be thought as one answer to this question. For no one would argue that 1 is not equal to 1.
However, when referring to another example within which red flowers become the objects of comparison, i.e. red flower is identical with red flower, then the statement seems not as valid as the 1=1 statement. The "Flower" statement is a priori true; but is nevertheless not a posteriori true-namely, no one can be sure that there really are two identical red flowers in the real world, the unknowability of this issue constitutes one of the fundamental bifurcations between rationalism and empiricism.

1 Reply

@Mutian,

Hi Mutian!
Nice to meet you!
'1=1' is like saying 'blue=blue'. It is not describing something physical and it is only an imaginary measurement. Of course 1=1, what else could it possibly equal? And it has only 'ONE' identity (literally).

Thank you, and have a smashing day!
Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Rex!

I utterly disagree. And just because we coin the term 'identical twin' doesn't make it so.

Two physical things cannot occupy the same location in time and space, else they would be one thing. Ergo, being in two alternate locations demands an abscence of identicality.

Kind regards!
Mark...

0 Replies

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Rex!

I utterly disagree. And just because we coin the term 'identical twin' doesn't make it so.

Two physical things cannot occupy the same location in time and space, else they would be one thing. Ergo, being in two alternate locations demands an abscence of identicality.

Kind regards!
Mark...

What if there are two leaves with identical properties, but one is on one branch of a tree, and the other is on a different branch? For you to say that the two leaves are not identical leaves is for you to say that spatial location is a property of the leaves. But is it? Suppose there were only one leaf. Would where it was located be one of its properties? If you described the leaf, would you include where it was located as one of its properties?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Hi Ken!

Nice post!

I would describe the whereabouts of the leaf as being properties of, yes. Because it is in the company of unique environmental factors, unique in themselves and their location.

Everything is divisible! Or is it? Is it only divisible by location assigned by the human mind. We are low in perceptive ability when we consider the materials that are beyond our conventional perception.
Is the leaf removable from the fabric of spacetime it inhabits, or does it just ebb and flow with the invisible tide?

What do you think Ken?

Kind regards!
Mark...

1 Reply

Can Any Two Things Be Identical???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know