45
   

Can Any Two Things Be Identical???

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 03:39 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

DrDick wrote:

If there are infinite multiple realities being played out, in theory there could then exist two realities that are exactly identical.

Hi DrDick,
Or even an infinite amount of exact identical realities? But, for the moment I am restricting this thread to the parameters earlier mentioned.
Thank you DrDick, and journey well, sir.
Mark...


Ken, You are an intelligent man. Can you not find the medium between you and us mortals?



That you are mortals has nothing to do with it, What has to do with it is whether you are making sense, and, if you are, whether what you say is true. The second, of course, assumes the first.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 03:44 pm
@Reyn,
Hi Reyn,
IMO Yes - Every thing can be absolutely identical in every which way.
Thank you Reyn, journey brilliantly.
Mark...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 03:45 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

What matters is that he ditched the correspondence theory of truth, and the quest for the objective definition of words. Both "truth" and "identity" are words having different meanings with respect to different "language games".


They do? What are those language games? Wittgenstein never "ditched" the view that words have objective meanings. He believed that those objective meaning lay in the collective use of terms. And what that was, was, of course, objective. That "W" is used by fluent English speakers in this or that way is simply a fact about how the word, "W" is used.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 03:51 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
That you are mortals

Hi Ken,
This kind of statement appears to sever you from the collective (mortals). Why?
Fare well Ken.
Mark...
0 Replies
 
DrDick
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 03:53 pm
@mark noble,
If restricted to the parameters mentioned earlier, then space/time is a limiting factor that does not allow two items to ever be 100% identical, because two physical items cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 04:07 pm
@DrDick,
Hi DrDick,
Absolutely!!! When a few more people accept this, the follow-up thread can start.
Thank you.
Mark...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 04:10 pm
@Reyn,
Reyn wrote:

Can anything be really absolutely identical in every which way?


Identity is a relation. Nothing can be simply, "identical" , it has to be identical with something. That does not mean that something cannot be identical with itself. Indeed, everything has the property of being self-identical. Unless X is identical with X, there is not X. (X=X is one way that logicians express the proposition that X exists).

By "strict" or "numerical" identity is meant "one and the same" . Thus, for instance, Mark Twain and Samuel L. Clemens are numerically (strictly) identical. Or, in other words, there are not two persons, one named, Mark Twain, and the other, Sam Clemens. There is only one person, but there are two names. They are one and the same person. On the other hand, as contrasted with strict identity (numerical identity) there is qualitative identity. Two things (really two things, now) are qualitatively identical (or "the same") when they have all of their properties in common. What is not clear at all is whether it follows that when two things have all their qualities in common, then they are one and the same thing, that is, strictly identical. Can X and Y be qualitatively identical and not also be quantitatively identical (or strictly identical, or numerically identical"? On the other hand, turn it around and ask the question, an any (putatively) two things, X and Y be qualitatively identical (that is have all their qualities or properties in common) and still not be numerically (strictly, quantitatively) identical? And you can see that the answer to that question is, no. So, it is not at all clear that what is qualitatively identical is numerically (or quantitatively identical). But it is clear that what is numerically identical (strictly identical, quantitatively identical) is also qualitatively identical.

The concept of identity, along with that of knowledge, truth, morality, and a few others, is one of the central concepts of philosophical (and ordinary) thought, and the understanding of these concepts and their analysis, is the primary job of the philosopher.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 04:20 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Reyn wrote:

Can anything be really absolutely identical in every which way?


Identity is a relation. Nothing can be simply, "identical" , it has to be identical with something. That does not mean that something cannot be identical with itself. Indeed, everything has the property of being self-identical. Unless X is identical with X, there is not X. (X=X is one way that logicians express the proposition that X exists).

By "strict" or "numerical" identity is meant "one and the same" . Thus, for instance, Mark Twain and Samuel L. Clemens are numerically (strictly) identical. Or, in other words, there are not two persons, one named, Mark Twain, and the other, Sam Clemens. There is only one person, but there are two names. They are one and the same person. On the other hand, as contrasted with strict identity (numerical identity) there is qualitative identity. Two things (really two things, now) are qualitatively identical (or "the same") when they have all of their properties in common. What is not clear at all is whether it follows that when two things have all their qualities in common, then they are one and the same thing, that is, strictly identical. Can X and Y be qualitatively identical and not also be quantitatively identical (or strictly identical, or numerically identical"? On the other hand, turn it around and ask the question, an any (putatively) two things, X and Y be qualitatively identical (that is have all their qualities or properties in common) and still not be numerically (strictly, quantitatively) identical? And you can see that the answer to that question is, no. So, it is not at all clear that what is qualitatively identical is numerically (or quantitatively identical). But it is clear that what is numerically identical (strictly identical, quantitatively identical) is also qualitatively identical.

The concept of identity, along with that of knowledge, truth, morality, and a few others, is one of the central concepts of philosophical (and ordinary) thought, and the understanding of these concepts and their analysis, is the primary job of the philosopher.


Hi Ken, In what way?
Thank you, be merry.
Mark...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 05:27 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Reyn wrote:

Can anything be really absolutely identical in every which way?


Identity is a relation. Nothing can be simply, "identical" , it has to be identical with something. That does not mean that something cannot be identical with itself. Indeed, everything has the property of being self-identical. Unless X is identical with X, there is not X. (X=X is one way that logicians express the proposition that X exists).

By "strict" or "numerical" identity is meant "one and the same" . Thus, for instance, Mark Twain and Samuel L. Clemens are numerically (strictly) identical. Or, in other words, there are not two persons, one named, Mark Twain, and the other, Sam Clemens. There is only one person, but there are two names. They are one and the same person. On the other hand, as contrasted with strict identity (numerical identity) there is qualitative identity. Two things (really two things, now) are qualitatively identical (or "the same") when they have all of their properties in common. What is not clear at all is whether it follows that when two things have all their qualities in common, then they are one and the same thing, that is, strictly identical. Can X and Y be qualitatively identical and not also be quantitatively identical (or strictly identical, or numerically identical"? On the other hand, turn it around and ask the question, an any (putatively) two things, X and Y be qualitatively identical (that is have all their qualities or properties in common) and still not be numerically (strictly, quantitatively) identical? And you can see that the answer to that question is, no. So, it is not at all clear that what is qualitatively identical is numerically (or quantitatively identical). But it is clear that what is numerically identical (strictly identical, quantitatively identical) is also qualitatively identical.

The concept of identity, along with that of knowledge, truth, morality, and a few others, is one of the central concepts of philosophical (and ordinary) thought, and the understanding of these concepts and their analysis, is the primary job of the philosopher.


Hi Ken, In what way?
Thank you, be merry.
Mark...


Any intelligent way, I suppose.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 05:37 pm
@DrDick,
DrDick wrote:

If restricted to the parameters mentioned earlier, then space/time is a limiting factor that does not allow two items to ever be 100% identical, because two physical items cannot occupy the same space at the same time.


Of course, that depends on whether you mean by "identical" numerically identical, or just qualitatively identical (or "the same"). But apparently, you are not inclined to say. Or maybe, just maybe, you don't know which you mean. "100% identical" is, you see, ambiguous. It is also a question whether location is a property. Newton thought it was, but Leibniz, and now Einstein, think it is not. For example, consider two objects, alone in otherwise empty space. Now where are the two objects? All we can say in reply to this is where they are relative to one another. Now remove one of the objects. Now, where is the remaining object? There is no answer to that question. Why? Because spatial location is not an absolute property of anything.
DrDick
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 05:47 pm
@kennethamy,
I am basing my answer on parameters set by Mark, after all he is the one that started the thread. One of his parameters is that we are dealing with material items, therefore Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain is not a good example. There cannot be two of the same person occupying the same space/time.

As to where two objects are in empty space, they are not in the same space therefore not identical.

If you remove one object, where is the other. It matters not, because they are not in the same space therefore not identical.

Based on Mark's parameter space is a property.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 05:59 pm
@DrDick,
Hi DrDick,
Don't play into his hands - You'll never get rid of him! If you read his last post he states "and NOW Einstein believes too". Should we tell him that Albert is no longer with us in person?
Thank you, DrD.
Mark...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 06:02 pm
@DrDick,
DrDick wrote:

I am basing my answer on parameters set by Mark, after all he is the one that started the thread. One of his parameters is that we are dealing with material items, therefore Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain is not a good example. There cannot be two of the same person occupying the same space/time.

As to where two objects are in empty space, they are not in the same space therefore not identical.

If you remove one object, where is the other. It matters not, because they are not in the same space therefore not identical.

Based on Mark's parameter space is a property.


If Mark Twain and Sam Clemens are sitting on the very same chair, then there are not two persons sitting on that chair. There is just one person. Namely, Mark Twain, or Sam Clemens, or Mark Twain/Sam Clemens. For Mark Twain and Sam Clemens are (as you know) numerically identical.

The two objects are in the same space, since I posited that they were, and they are not identical since there are two of them, so they are not numerically or strictly, identical. But whatever made you think that I thought they were identical? Something I said? Whatever Marks "parameter" is (whatever a "parameter" is) has nothing to do with the case, since whether space is a property or not is a question of fact, and not a question of Mark's parameter (whatever that may mean). Apparently, physics tells us it is a relative, but not an absolute property. If Mark's parameter agrees with that, I am happy for him. On the other hand if it does not, well, then Mark will have to return to the drawing board and construct a new parameter. Whatever that happens to mean.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 06:04 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi DrDick,
Don't play into his hands - You'll never get rid of him! If you read his last post he states "and NOW Einstein believes too". Should we tell him that Albert is no longer with us in person?
Thank you, DrD.
Mark...


You think that if I write that Socrates believes that knowledge is virtue, that implies I believe that Socrates is still alive? Language has meaning only in context.
DrDick
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 06:22 pm
@kennethamy,
There are not two objects sitting in the same space. There is one object, a single individual, identified via linguistics in two different ways. What you are stating is just because there is such a thing called language all items are not identical simply because one person refers to an object as a "ball" and another refers to the same object as a "pelota". Numerically as you would state, there is a single ball occupying the same space or a famous writer sitting in the same space. Oops, I just labeled Sam as a famous writer, now there are three of them...qualitatively speaking.
DrDick
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 06:28 pm
@mark noble,
Lol, did not see your post. It is not a big issue. Most forums I have been in have always had a few Bill Clinton's (qualitatively not numerically) who's bread and butter relies on arguing what the word is is.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 06:28 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:


You think that if I write that Socrates believes that knowledge is virtue, that implies I believe that Socrates is still alive? Language has meaning only in context.

Hi Ken,
No I don't think that. Do you think that I think that? I think that it is your prerogative to think that I think that, but I think it is only you who thinks that I think that, unless you think that I think that you think that I think that because you think that?
If you compared it (without corruption) to your prior post - It would read thusly - "Socrates NOW believes that knowledge is virtue". This would imply that you believe Socrates to be alive and well, or alive, or well and alive, but definitely alive.
Did you know that Albert passed away many decades ago? How should I know what you know? I can only know what I know, but I'm sure that Albert is dead, in this reality, that is (within set parameters, of course).
Have a magnificent evening Ken.
Mark...
kennethamy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 06:35 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

kennethamy wrote:


You think that if I write that Socrates believes that knowledge is virtue, that implies I believe that Socrates is still alive? Language has meaning only in context.

Hi Ken,
No I don't think that. Do you think that I think that? I think that it is your prerogative to think that I think that, but I think it is only you who thinks that I think that, unless you think that I think that you think that I think that because you think that?
If you compared it (without corruption) to your prior post - It would read thusly - "Socrates NOW believes that knowledge is virtue". This would imply that you believe Socrates to be alive and well, or alive, or well and alive, but definitely alive.
Did you know that Albert passed away many decades ago? How should I know what you know? I can only know what I know, but I'm sure that Albert is dead, in this reality, that is (within set parameters, of course).
Have a magnificent evening Ken.
Mark...


Sigh!
0 Replies
 
A Lyn Fei
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 09:08 pm
@mark noble,
Since the conversation has digressed past the point of no return, I will simply answer the original question to the best of my abilities. Note I have very little scientific knowledge.
The way I see it, which is the only way I can see for I know nothing through any other eyes, is that no two things in the material world can be identical. Mathematics does not exist in the material world, nor does "identity" as has been thrown around in many posts. My argument is simple: there are no identical things because the universe, itself, is one infinite thing. We are able to perceive a multitude of pieces and conceptualize similarities and differences, but these things do not go beyond the mind. There is no such thing as "2". It is merely a definition to compartmentalize that which creates our respective realities.
As far as alternate realities are concerned, I see no point to saying that two things are identical on the atomic level if they are identical in two realities. If they are identical in two realities that exist in the same place, then they are, in fact, one thing- not two.
However, there is one "thing" that does come to mind that I might be inclined to think identical even though it exists in all places at once: time. Time a second ago is identical to time now, yet I am in the same place. This might not be so, because one could argue that time is different as it passes by, but at the very least it is tricky to say that time is either identical with itself or that it is different in some way if one is in the same space. I will have to ponder this further.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 09:11 pm
@DrDick,
DrDick wrote:

There are not two objects sitting in the same space. There is one object, a single individual



Of course. What would lead you to think I thought otherwise? Mark Twain and Sam Clemens (and, for that matter, the author of "Huckleberry Finn") are all of them, sitting in the same chair. That is because they are numerically identical with each other. They are one and the same individual. Although, of course, I am sure that some people may not know that. As I pointed out, strict identity is numerical identity.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
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
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/19/2021 at 06:53:43