Can Any Two Things Be Identical???

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

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.

I wonder whether you really would have if you were not defending the view that it was a property. And what of my question, suppose nothing else existed save the leaf. Would it have a spatial property then? Where, then, would it be in space? If your answer is no, then what sort of property is location?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Hi Ken!

What is the point to supposing hypothetical scenarios?
If there was only one leaf in existence, we wouldn't be here to measure and label its properties, would we?

Keep it real Ken.

Kind regards!
Mark...

2 Replies

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

What is the point to supposing hypothetical scenarios?
If there was only one leaf in existence, we wouldn't be here to measure and label its properties, would we?

Keep it real Ken.

Kind regards!
Mark...

The point of the thought-experiment (used by physicists like Galileo (the frictionless plane) and Einstein (the sending a twin to another solar system at the speed of light) is to abstract from the real world so as to get a pure understanding unfettered by irrelevancies (Look up "thought-experiment" on Google, and you will see many other examples of the use of thought-experiments by scientists and philosophers). The thought-experiment of the leaf shows that space is a relational property of objects (like time) which is argued for by Relativity theory. So, location is not a property of objects the way shape or even color is.

0 Replies

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

What is the point to supposing hypothetical scenarios?
If there was only one leaf in existence, we wouldn't be here to measure and label its properties, would we?

Keep it real Ken.

Kind regards!
Mark...

The point of the thought-experiment (used by physicists like Galileo (the frictionless plane) and Einstein (the sending a twin to another solar system at the speed of light) is to abstract from the real world so as to get a pure understanding unfettered by irrelevancies (Look up "thought-experiment" on Google, and you will see many other examples of the use of thought-experiments by scientists and philosophers. Try learning something for a change.). The thought-experiment of the leaf shows that space is a relational property of objects (like time) which is argued for by Relativity theory. So, location is not a property of objects the way shape or even color is. I hope you would not have said to Galileo, "keep it real", or to Einstein "keep it real, Al" for had they listened to you, the world would now be a very different place. Maybe when the theologians held that Jupiter had no Moons, and Galileo asked them to look through his telescope they said to him, "Keep it real" too.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

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).

To some degree of deviation, two things can appear to have identical characteristics. Two objects might both be green, they might both contain chlorophyll, so on and so forth. That is not to say that these objects are absolutely identical in every detail, only that they have a number of properties which are categorically the same. If we nit-pick through specific details about two objects, we can note that their spacial coordinates are different too.

Even if we were to make the argument that this is the matrix, and that both leaves are the identical because they are derived from the same code, that is only to say that the leaves themselves are just two manifestations of one leaf with a set function of characteristics (sort of like Plato's The Forms). But then again, that goes back into the idea that two things could be characteristically identical, but not absolutely identical.

Although, you've got me thinking. I'm not sure what a "thing" would be considered? And I'm not entirely sure on what "identical" is referring too.

I think I see your point. I concede that things can be characteristically identical (using the matrix example). I'm still convinced that no two things could be absolutely identical without being the same thing to begin with.

0 Replies

@mark noble,

Quote:

Of course! Added to the fact that they must also be in two alternate spacetime locations, or else they are one thing - the same in itself and of itself.

It's good to remember that an object doesn't even need to be in one spacial location, particularly when we get into the realm of the subatomic with entangled particles.

1 Reply

@RealEyes,

Hi RE!

I find your posts most agreeable. Absolute identicality is what is proposed.
I also agree that things, or thing, at the quantum level can occupy more than one spacial location. But again, only it or they can occupy those locations...Ever....I believe.

Nice writing to you RE!
Mark...

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

Hi Ken!

Of course I wouldn't have said 'Keep it real' to Gal or Al. Had they been hypothesising in the realms of Make-believe, and had I been present, I most likely would have said 'Keepeth it thee tangibleth' to Gal and 'Thanks for the atom bomb, you pillock!' to Al.

If ANY single event in history were different EVERYTHING would be different...again.

And the 'time-travelling twin' Doesn't work.

Kind regards!
Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

Of course I wouldn't have said 'Keep it real' to Gal or Al. Had they been hypothesising in the realms of Make-believe, and had I been present, I most likely would have said 'Keepeth it thee tangibleth' to Gal and 'Thanks for the atom bomb, you pillock!' to Al.

If ANY single event in history were different EVERYTHING would be different...again.

And the 'time-travelling twin' Doesn't work.

Kind regards!
Mark...

What doesn't work? The point is, location is not a property, so that A and B are in different locations does not differentiate them. It does not follow from, A and B cannot be in the same place at the same time, that if A and B are in different places at the same time that A is not identical with B. Since if A and B are identical, they cannot be in different places.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Hi Ken!

Location is a property, if you consider it to be, and isn't if you don't. The real point is, What you are calling 'location' is occupied by material that makes up the sum of that location, otherwise there would be no location to consider, for no location can be void of material. If A doesn't exist - A has no properties.

I hope you understand this now.

Kind regards!
Mark...

2 Replies

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

Location is a property, if you consider it to be, and isn't if you don't. The real point is, What you are calling 'location' is occupied by material that makes up the sum of that location, otherwise there would be no location to consider, for no location can be void of material. If A doesn't exist - A has no properties.

I hope you understand this now.

Kind regards!
Mark...

0 Replies

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

Location is a property, if you consider it to be, and isn't if you don't. The real point is, What you are calling 'location' is occupied by material that makes up the sum of that location, otherwise there would be no location to consider, for no location can be void of material. If A doesn't exist - A has no properties.

I hope you understand this now.

Kind regards!
Mark...

But location is not a thing. It is where things are. Locations cannot have properties. And locations are not properties. Think about that leaf alone in the universe. Where do you think it is? It makes sense to talk about where something is in relation to other things. You do see that, don't you?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Hi Ken!

Yes. But in your lone-leaf scenario, there is only one thing and one location.

Location 'A' is comprised of the material present at, within and about location 'A', is it not?
If there is no material - there is no location. Do you agree?

Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

Yes. But in your lone-leaf scenario, there is only one thing and one location.

Location 'A' is comprised of the material present at, within and about location 'A', is it not?
If there is no material - there is no location. Do you agree?

Mark...

As I asked before, if the leaf has a location, then where is it? (And somewhere in the universe is not a location). To repeat, X can be located only with respect to something else, Y.

2 Replies

@mark noble,

Correct...Mark. Haha, my fault, kinda got confused.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

Hi Ken!

It is everywhere.

Kind regards!
Mark...

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

Yes. But in your lone-leaf scenario, there is only one thing and one location.

Location 'A' is comprised of the material present at, within and about location 'A', is it not?
If there is no material - there is no location. Do you agree?

Mark...

As I asked before, if the leaf has a location, then where is it? (And somewhere in the universe is not a location). To repeat, X can be located only with respect to something else, Y.

Are you certain you could not locate A with respect to A prime??? In what sense could people describe themselves except in regard to who they were before, 50 years ago or ten minutes ago... People are with variation what they were before, and their identity does not change... And part of the reason no one compares the rich with the poor is that so few of the rich have begun life in poverty or escaped poverty... The lesson is not there that people can remake themselves and are free to be what and who they wish to be, but quite the reverse, that people remain who they are, unable to break the mold...

No one can begin to make rational comparisons between disimilar objects... To determine identity is the point of the syllogism so that logic in its true sense can be brought to bear... To say there is no identity means even words do not have the same meaning twice, so what is the point of talking??? It is true that you can never step into the same river twice but true because we never feel the same about it twice, but that does not mean we are not identical to ourselves, or that the river is not identical to itself, but rather, that we do not equal ourselves any more than the river equals its previous being...It is what it is, and we are what we are; but most of reality is not so quickly changing... Every single bit of matter is radioactive with an extremely long half life... Does that mean that because it is in a state of change that it is not now something???

All elements represent a point of stability, a step between being one thing and another...We have no such graduations in our identities, and yet we refer to ourselves as the most stable being of all, because we are always ourselves...So it is with identity, that it is a predicate based upon reasonable evidence and insufficient proof...What reason says, that even the most simple of elements is different beyond comprehension robs us of rationality which is based upon values remaining constant, as words keep their meaning... We must have something to compare in order to make judgements and to have knowledge, and the denial of identity is the denial of judgement, and is also the denial of the means by which we judge, our words and numbers as meanings and values...

0 Replies

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

It is everywhere.

Kind regards!
Mark...

On the contrary, there isn't any where. There can be a where only in relation to there being something else. Ask yourself, how do we locate Earth? It is the third planet from the Sun. It is related with respect to the Sun.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Hi Ken!

Either you're not being clear or I'm not receiving clearly.

If there is just this one leaf and nothing else exists the leaf is the omniverse And an omniverse is everywhere.
The leaf cannot be nowhere because nowhere does not and cannot exist.

Why would I want to locate the earth? I'm in it. If I were not, I would be an astronaut, but I'm not, so it doesn't matter.

Do you have trouble locating it Ken?

Or do you mean on a planetary map? If this is the case, I would likely count back from the sun, but I'm not sure I'll ever need to refer to a map of the solar system again - There's not a lot that has changed, I mean what would I see that I haven't already seen "Pluto's gone" ? And I know where the planets are, but wish I didn't, because... it's pointless information to retain.

I've got to go for now, mainly because I've no idea what the thread is about.
But, have a nice day, Ken!
Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

Either you're not being clear or I'm not receiving clearly.

If there is just this one leaf and nothing else exists the leaf is the omniverse And an omniverse is everywhere.
The leaf cannot be nowhere because nowhere does not and cannot exist.

Why would I want to locate the earth? I'm in it. If I were not, I would be an astronaut, but I'm not, so it doesn't matter.

Do you have trouble locating it Ken?

Or do you mean on a planetary map? If this is the case, I would likely count back from the sun, but I'm not sure I'll ever need to refer to a map of the solar system again - There's not a lot that has changed, I mean what would I see that I haven't already seen "Pluto's gone" ? And I know where the planets are, but wish I didn't, because... it's pointless information to retain.

I've got to go for now, mainly because I've no idea what the thread is about.
But, have a nice day, Ken!
Mark...

You think the universe is in some location known as everywhere? Where do you suppose everywhere is? You must also think that everywhere has some location too.

Glad to remind you what this thread is about. It is about whether two things can be identical. And specifically, whether location is a property. If you are confused, you have only to ask. I am a little surprised about your forgetting what this thread is about, since you (I believe) began it. And then, of course, you had the title of the thread to remind you.

1 Reply

Can Any Two Things Be Identical???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know