Can Any Two Things Be Identical???

which is?

...a fact that you are unawares.

bah!

"any two things that are identical to one another in every way"

"any two things that are identical to one another in every way"

There, I've thought of them!

Actually, one was before and the other was after. And if we examine the type with a powerful microscope we will find great physical differences between the two typed utterances. They are identical only formerly--like two pennies.

Actually, one was before and the other was after. And if we examine the type with a powerful microscope we will find great physical differences between the two typed utterances. They are identical only formerly--like two pennies.

Sorry to sign on so late. I just googled the same question, it just popped up this morning in my head. I tried to find a consensus, but couldn't figure which is most accepted.
My hypothesis is that no two things are identical. That includes atoms and all subatomic particles. Isn't Nature great!!! Everything is unique!!!
Now, the fascinating topic of Why is a whole other can of beans.

I used to think like you but I am not entirely sure of it now, and I am not referring to the number of changing atoms that one object has at any time when compared with a similar one, once statistical coincidences may occur...on one thing we can agree eventually, no two things have exactly the same role in the frame of time/space in what we use to call reality, although, careful...things have identical effective functions...what changes is its final purpose and place on the great scheme of things...from there perceptually we have or find this intuition that no two things are entirely identical, once what we can know of things, mainly is their role in context... and not what they are onto themselves as fundamental nature...we still can correctly intuit a fundamental X nature must be true even if beyond our knowledge with certainty once questioning it necessarily requires its recognition.
...even if one argues that the problem posed by Descartes was not correctly formulated once "I" exist says nothing onto the nature of the I...the essential in it stays true, that is, X exists if I am questioning anything...the very questioning to be a question, or to exist fits the definition that an X exists, in the very least on the form of the very question we are posing !...

Identical in time and space at the sub-atomic quantum level when everything is moving and spinning? It's possible. Even a monkey can eventually write Shakespeare given enough time according to the infinite monkey theorem. Would they cancel each out? I don't know. Would they start some kind of chain reaction? Maybe. Would an identical someone just like me pop into existence and bump me off? Well, go see "The Prestige".

probably may there are two things identical apparently but this identical is not detailed and absolutely.

""Aside from math, I cannot think of two identical things. Even if two things were completely completely completely identical down to each atom, the two would not be identical because they cannot occupy the same space (thinking of solids here).""


okay, this is basically the problem when trying to figure out the question, but one must realize that every question and adjective is just a label given by our society. so questions like these arise when there is no label for what we are trying to describe. so for starters you need to know the difference between "identical" and the "same" .what you were describing is the "same". And you cant find anything that is the exact same unless its from a parallel universe. But being identical is possible because the objects don't have to be the same just the aspects of the objects must be identical,which in turn makes the object itself identical. So the objects don't have to occupy the "same" space just another space of the same identity. If you need further information please email me

[email protected]

you actually have the right idea but technically the pixels on the computer will change slightly, the size and location of each letter

No they cannot because they cannot occupy the same space at the same time; you apparently do not watch enough science fiction television.

Yes I Do.

And even if all criteria were exactly ordered in a parallel universe, as infinity determines they MUST be.
They are still unidentical due to their alternate location.

If I snuck in your house when you were not there, and stole all your furniture and destroyed it, and replaced it with furniture that are exactly same to the micro level of atoms, as well as in the same orientation without error, would you call this new furniture identical to the furniture I replaced?

of course two things are identical in many angles points
they are both things so of one thing conceived in truth so cant b but one fact called thing, that is how surely things reality exist bc of identities shares

the question is when truth is freedom and freedom by definition is else could two elses being actually the same in some truth ways or the best question on that mean would b, can freedom b conceived??? so is there a true freedom and not right freedom

what also prove u being a liar in pretendin thinking, is how u assume that comparaison of things must also b in absolute terms to mean it in fact of
but on the contrary, what involves not only one is by definition always in relative terms, so identity or identical concept is like twins always relative same that mean both existing more, u cant reach a confusion so creation of third one by meaning two ones, even one plus one so perfect arithmetical same dont make but a total of two

You on the same page fella?

Imans, not to appear to be intentionally rude, but wtf are you discussing here?

To agree with a previous reply:

There are no two identical entities in the universe. If there were then how could they be differentiated?

If one considers the current popular theory of the origin of the universe - the "big bang" theory - the implication of this theory is that all matter was inextriably linked while expanding from a singularity.

If one applies the concept of uniqueness then it follows that, for example, there is only one quark which is present throughout the observable universe in a multidude of states.

An analogy is the use of mirrors to amplify a light source: it is the same photon at different times, but to a slow observer appears to accumulate in the same way that a point source, a star, becomes a line during a long exposure of a camera.

On this basis, the entire universe is a reverberation of a single note reflected and re-reflected through time.

If there is is only one of anything then this simplifies the theories somewhat.

However this concept allows "action at a distance" (a result of the point origin of the universe) and other consequences which affects fundamental concepts such as the conservation of energy (If the entire universe is involved in interactions then conservation of energy becomes meaningless because each interaction is conserved across the entire universe).

All of the above is pure speculation, no experimental proof, so comes into the category of conjecture, not science.

Nice one Zenod, you have hit on my 'Sole particle displacement theory'.
I love days like this, measurable or not:)