Can Any Two Things Be Identical???

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.

DrDick wrote:

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.

What do you think philosophers should argue about? Whatever they argue about, I think they should try to get to the truth, even if it isn't thrilling. And, a prerequisite for that is that we know what we are talking about. Even if that means that we have to talk about what the word "is" is. Since it is very easy to talk nonsense in philosophy. For example, it you don't distinguish sharply between numerical and qualitative identity, you will find yourself asking whether two things can be identical or not, and find yourself very puzzled about it. As Wittgenstein said, when the fly is buzzing around in the fly -bottle, all the fly has to do is look up, and he will see an opening. And when he does, he need not keep buzzing around. The fly can simply fly out of the fly- bottle. The job of philosophy, Wittgenstein says, is "to show the fly out of the fly-bottle". And, you know, often, pointing out there there are two senses of identity, or even, arguing about what the meaning of "is" is, does exactly that! Can two things be identical? Well, that depends on what you mean by "identity". If you mean numerical identity, no. But if you mean qualitative identity, sure. And wow! The fly escapes the fly-bottle. Happy fly!

kennethamy wrote:

DrDick wrote:

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.

What do you think philosophers should argue about? Whatever they argue about, I think they should try to get to the truth, even if it isn't thrilling. And, a prerequisite for that is that we know what we are talking about. Even if that means that we have to talk about what the word "is" is. Since it is very easy to talk nonsense in philosophy. For example, it you don't distinguish sharply between numerical and qualitative identity, you will find yourself asking whether two things can be identical or not, and find yourself very puzzled about it. As Wittgenstein said, when the fly is buzzing around in the fly -bottle, all the fly has to do is look up, and he will see an opening. And when he does, he need not keep buzzing around. The fly can simply fly out of the fly- bottle. The job of philosophy, Wittgenstein says, is "to show the fly out of the fly-bottle". And, you know, often, pointing out there there are two senses of identity, or even, arguing about what the meaning of "is" is, does exactly that! Can two things be identical? Well, that depends on what you mean by "identity". If you mean numerical identity, no. But if you mean qualitative identity, sure. And wow! The fly escapes the fly-bottle. Happy fly!

Hi Ken
Really?
best wishes.
Mark...

mark noble wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

DrDick wrote:

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.

What do you think philosophers should argue about? Whatever they argue about, I think they should try to get to the truth, even if it isn't thrilling. And, a prerequisite for that is that we know what we are talking about. Even if that means that we have to talk about what the word "is" is. Since it is very easy to talk nonsense in philosophy. For example, it you don't distinguish sharply between numerical and qualitative identity, you will find yourself asking whether two things can be identical or not, and find yourself very puzzled about it. As Wittgenstein said, when the fly is buzzing around in the fly -bottle, all the fly has to do is look up, and he will see an opening. And when he does, he need not keep buzzing around. The fly can simply fly out of the fly- bottle. The job of philosophy, Wittgenstein says, is "to show the fly out of the fly-bottle". And, you know, often, pointing out there there are two senses of identity, or even, arguing about what the meaning of "is" is, does exactly that! Can two things be identical? Well, that depends on what you mean by "identity". If you mean numerical identity, no. But if you mean qualitative identity, sure. And wow! The fly escapes the fly-bottle. Happy fly!

Hi Ken
Really?
best wishes.
Mark...

Yep. Really. You too can fly out of the bottle. Just look up and fly out of the bottle instead of banging your head over and over again on the sides of the bottle while buzzing angrily.

kennethamy wrote:

mark noble wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

DrDick wrote:

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.

What do you think philosophers should argue about? Whatever they argue about, I think they should try to get to the truth, even if it isn't thrilling. And, a prerequisite for that is that we know what we are talking about. Even if that means that we have to talk about what the word "is" is. Since it is very easy to talk nonsense in philosophy. For example, it you don't distinguish sharply between numerical and qualitative identity, you will find yourself asking whether two things can be identical or not, and find yourself very puzzled about it. As Wittgenstein said, when the fly is buzzing around in the fly -bottle, all the fly has to do is look up, and he will see an opening. And when he does, he need not keep buzzing around. The fly can simply fly out of the fly- bottle. The job of philosophy, Wittgenstein says, is "to show the fly out of the fly-bottle". And, you know, often, pointing out there there are two senses of identity, or even, arguing about what the meaning of "is" is, does exactly that! Can two things be identical? Well, that depends on what you mean by "identity". If you mean numerical identity, no. But if you mean qualitative identity, sure. And wow! The fly escapes the fly-bottle. Happy fly!

Hi Ken
Really?
best wishes.
Mark...

Yep. Really. You too can fly out of the bottle. Just look up and fly out of the bottle instead of banging your head over and over again on the sides of the bottle while buzzing angrily.

Hi Ken,
I don't get angry - I am in control of my emotions, not them me. And I'm not banging my head. My opinion on this is conclusive, it will not change. You are the one who is angry, because you are out of your depth with no moderators to step in and save your sorry butt anymore.
I forgive you for being you, Ken. And you do make me laugh out loud so often. I even think you are intelligent (very), but lacking in wisdom and void of understanding.
Never mind eh?
Have a lovely evening, I'm off to bed now, see you tomorrow, no doubt?
Mark...

hygrogen atom

Can anything be really absolutely identical in every which way?

engineer wrote:

mark noble wrote:

If I threw a series of donkeys off the empire state building, they would all explode on impact, this doesn't make them identical.

If your only perception of a donkey's value was the splat it made on contact with the ground, then all donkeys are of the same to you and you perceive no difference (unless you are sorting on weight). Saying something is identical seems like a value statement. I suppose there is an empirical argument that says they must be identical down to the last atom, but in reality, something is effectively identical to me if I can perceive no difference. Show me a stack of pennies of the same year, similar wear and the same color. Mix them up and ask me to identify which is which. I wouldn't be able to do it and I wouldn't care because I consider them identical. Does it matter than they are all of very slightly different weight? Not to me if I can't perceive it.

But one can consider two things identical, and one can be unable to distinguish between two things, and still, the two things may not be identical. After all, you may not be able to distinguish between identical twins, nor ever care to, but how would you inability to do so, or your caring whether you did so, affect whether the twins were one and the same person or not? Obviously it wouldn't affect that in the least. Even if you were not around, the identical twins would still be twins, and not one and the same person. What you believe about the facts has nothing whatsoever to do with what those facts are.

north wrote:

hygrogen atom

This is the type of response that initially came to me, but there are different isotopes of each atom, different energy levels and spins for the electrons, etc.

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.

kennethamy wrote:

engineer wrote:

mark noble wrote:

If I threw a series of donkeys off the empire state building, they would all explode on impact, this doesn't make them identical.

If your only perception of a donkey's value was the splat it made on contact with the ground, then all donkeys are of the same to you and you perceive no difference (unless you are sorting on weight). Saying something is identical seems like a value statement. I suppose there is an empirical argument that says they must be identical down to the last atom, but in reality, something is effectively identical to me if I can perceive no difference. Show me a stack of pennies of the same year, similar wear and the same color. Mix them up and ask me to identify which is which. I wouldn't be able to do it and I wouldn't care because I consider them identical. Does it matter than they are all of very slightly different weight? Not to me if I can't perceive it.

But one can consider two things identical, and one can be unable to distinguish between two things, and still, the two things may not be identical. After all, you may not be able to distinguish between identical twins, nor ever care to, but how would you inability to do so, or your caring whether you did so, affect whether the twins were one and the same person or not? Obviously it wouldn't affect that in the least. Even if you were not around, the identical twins would still be twins, and not one and the same person. What you believe about the facts has nothing whatsoever to do with what those facts are.

You are confusing identity with equality which is itself a form of identity...