45
   

Can Any Two Things Be Identical???

 
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 01:33 pm
@kennethamy,
Hi Ken!

I didn't forget what the thread is about, I never knew in the first place - I clicked my e-mail and here I was. Mostly I can tell from the posts what thread I'm at, but the all-leafy omniverse could be related to 20 threads of mine, or so.

The universe is one of the components of everywhere, Yes. So are you and I. Everywhere=omniverse!

The sum total of this universe is not relevant to the omniverse at large - The omniverse has no boundaries and is therefore everywhere - The omniverse is everywhere and everywhere is the omniverse.

Everywhere is everywhere Ken.

Nothing is Nothing Ken.

A combine-harvester is a combine-harvester.

Everyone is everyone.

A wigwam is a wigwam.

Nowhere is nowhere.

Are you beginning to see a pattern forming?

Thank you Ken!
Kind regards!
Mark...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2010 12:05 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

I didn't forget what the thread is about, I never knew in the first place - I clicked my e-mail and here I was. Mostly I can tell from the posts what thread I'm at, but the all-leafy omniverse could be related to 20 threads of mine, or so.

The universe is one of the components of everywhere, Yes. So are you and I. Everywhere=omniverse!

The sum total of this universe is not relevant to the omniverse at large - The omniverse has no boundaries and is therefore everywhere - The omniverse is everywhere and everywhere is the omniverse.

Everywhere is everywhere Ken.

Nothing is Nothing Ken.

A combine-harvester is a combine-harvester.

Everyone is everyone.

A wigwam is a wigwam.

Nowhere is nowhere.

Are you beginning to see a pattern forming?

Thank you Ken!
Kind regards!
Mark...


Don't bother telling Ken about nothing... He has nothing figured out.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2010 06:03 pm
@Fido,
Hi Fido!

Nice one!

Mark...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 11:00 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi Fido!

Nice one!

Mark...

Why, thank you. And thanks for the set up...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 03:12 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

I didn't forget what the thread is about, I never knew in the first place - I clicked my e-mail and here I was. Mostly I can tell from the posts what thread I'm at, but the all-leafy omniverse could be related to 20 threads of mine, or so.

The universe is one of the components of everywhere, Yes. So are you and I. Everywhere=omniverse!

The sum total of this universe is not relevant to the omniverse at large - The omniverse has no boundaries and is therefore everywhere - The omniverse is everywhere and everywhere is the omniverse.

Everywhere is everywhere Ken.

Nothing is Nothing Ken.

A combine-harvester is a combine-harvester.

Everyone is everyone.

A wigwam is a wigwam.

Nowhere is nowhere.

Are you beginning to see a pattern forming?

Thank you Ken!
Kind regards!
Mark...


Since "nowhere" is not the name of a place, no one can ask "where is nowhere" in the way they can ask, where is Cardiff? For "Cardiff" is the name of a place, so we can say (if we know) where it is. But since "nowhere" is not the name of a place, it makes no sense to ask where nowhere is. See the logic? The argument, put plainly is the following:

1. Only if "nowhere" is the name of a place, does it make sense to ask where nowhere is.
2. But, "nowhere" is not the name of a place.

Therefore, 3. It makes no sense to ask where nowhere is.

Now, both premises are true. The argument is valid. (Modus tollens) And so, the argument is sound. But, since all sound arguments have true conclusions, the conclusion, 3. is true. Therefore, it is true that is makes no sense to ask where nowhere is. QED.

"Logic is logic, that's all I can say". Oliver Wendall Holmes. "The Wonderful One-Horse Shay".

Trying to philosophize without knowing logic is like trying to row a boat without having any oars.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 03:25 pm
@kennethamy,
Ken!

This thread is about two things being identical. The 'Does nowhere exist' thread is not here, but it is somewhere.

Trying to answer a question on a thread that one is not at, is like trying to buy a hamster cage in a police station.

Mark...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 04:20 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Ken!

This thread is about two things being identical. The 'Does nowhere exist' thread is not here, but it is somewhere.

Trying to answer a question on a thread that one is not at, is like trying to buy a hamster cage in a police station.

Mark...


Well, you started it.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 06:13 pm
@kennethamy,
Ken!

You're awesome!!!

LOL
Mark...
0 Replies
 
ConnorBerge
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 11:06 am
It really has to do with perspective. A pyramid is not a pyramid in the 2nd dimension, though in the third dimension it's still a pyramid, and the non-pyramid in the second dimension is not the non-pyramid in the first dimension, though its still a pyramid. It is very possible to be something your not at the same time. Now lets go outside our dimensions- outside the 4th dimension, anything can be opposite at the same time. In the fourth dimension you are existing in both the beginning and the end. Tree A is not Tree B, but after 80 years of the miracle of life, Tree A has died and regrown as Tree B, and existing at the same time in the 4th dimension.

But if that doesn't make any sense, we can dive into arguments of definition. It isn't what it is unless it is in accordance with the definition. But consider not the definition, but more the area of location. When is a star not a star? When it is gas, because gas isn't a star, and not all stars are gas, though a clump of exploding gas in space is a star, but not always.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 07:54 pm

hydrogen atom is identical to another hydrogen atom
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 08:00 pm
@north,
nope, they are in different locations, and therefore not identical.

Cycloptichorn
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 08:10 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

nope, they are in different locations, and therefore not identical.

Cycloptichorn


so the hydrogen atom would act different side beside if brought down to - 270C ( a liquid )
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 08:12 pm
@north,
north wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

nope, they are in different locations, and therefore not identical.

Cycloptichorn


so the hydrogen atom would act different side beside if brought down to - 270C ( a liquid )


They might act the same, but they would still be occupying two separate positions, and therefore be different.

Cycloptichorn
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 08:21 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

north wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

nope, they are in different locations, and therefore not identical.

Cycloptichorn


so the hydrogen atom would act different side beside if brought down to - 270C ( a liquid )


They might act the same, but they would still be occupying two separate positions, and therefore be different.

Cycloptichorn


since no two things can occupy the same space , at the same moment , so what

doesn't imply that they can't be identical
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 08:36 pm
@north,
Quote:

since no two things can occupy the same space , at the same moment , so what

doesn't imply that they can't be identical


But, the location of an object is an integral part of what an object is, whether you are talking about an atom or anything else. It is definable and measurable. I don't agree that you can say that items with two different locations are identical, because they have different descriptions and designations in our minds based on their positions. That is a quantifiable difference between two things.

Cycloptihorn
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 08:42 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

since no two things can occupy the same space , at the same moment , so what

doesn't imply that they can't be identical


But, the location of an object is an integral part of what an object is, whether you are talking about an atom or anything else. It is definable and measurable. I don't agree that you can say that items with two different locations are identical, because they have different descriptions and designations in our minds based on their positions. That is a quantifiable difference between two things.

Cycloptihorn


the difference is that my perspective doesn't come from so much the mind as it does from the object its self

put yourself in the " shoes " of the object rather than our " shoes " , its what I do

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 08:43 pm
@north,
How long did it take you to learn that "skill?" I mean, to become the object.
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 08:57 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

How long did it take you to learn that "skill?" I mean, to become the object.


I have always done so , always , its natural to me

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 11:34 pm
@north,
What do you see when you make yourself into a star?
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2010 10:29 am
@mark noble,
Identity cannot be asserted of nothing. Therefore, if not, you would be hard pressed to explain the origin of the word.

Identity is always in reference to a measuring system. i.e., precision always applies.
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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 10:03:06