It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Philosophic Dilema: Can Two Objects Be Identical?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by absolutely
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 


philosophical level is truth concept

in truth, object is free value that is why it is left as respected to b itself since it is a definitive positive superior fact to zero
absolute truth is the most superior free value existing but any value is a definitive free right exactly as absolute truth

there is a fact of equality for whatever is above zero, in truth

but equality is not identity while in truth it is the opposite as nothing is equality, while since truth is freedom existing value, then equality became the concept of true existence while objects free realities became the fact of existence


I'm confused...

I'm not sure what you mean by "free value," "definitive positive superior fact to zero," "truth is freedom existing value," and "free realities."

I'm not sure why




posted on May, 13 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Wang Tang
 


why

bc truth is objective superiority, try to see that equation in absolute terms, u cant but if u could u would shut up

freedom value is the plus that confirm objective being superior fact, at least free constant sense there prove that there is smthg while being nothing them

what is true is what is constant what is constant is what is absolutely what is absolutely is what is true

but also what is true and what is constant and what is absolutely, is continuously superior in all terms

what is freedom value? what is subject superior entity constancy ? malheureusement it can only b objectively defined by opposition to what u r known as being absolute inferiority, evil

inferior that u r, is what knowing that truth is objective superiority, jump to sit objectively doing any while starting to invent an entity how it is objectively superior
then invent how to hide being liar by becoming mythoman continuously, searching objectively any inferior existence perspective to it in order to get from the confirmation of being superior continuously, till u become constant by forcing inferiority to u as the exclusive objective always
and u are of what everyone is so infinite of ones are like that, all focus on meaning objective inferiority to live through

truth is objective superiority, and when that is the truth that u know then it is gonna to kill u in more monster ways that u do

subject superior entity constancy, is by opposition to that gerb for objective terms

we are opposed to u more ever then u r opposed to us
u need us to sit on us, we need u to b out of here and anywhere

laugh as much as u want now we dont laugh we are serious, u love objective inferior life we gonna b sure that inferiority will exist at the most down possible and keep u there eternally, ur laughter is surely the energy that would justify ur existence there forever

subject superior entity constancy, is what is already constant what is already absolutely n what is already true
so ready always in all terms to deal with objective superiority right as being else
never meaning to b objective itself, that is absurd

what is more absurd as the edge of absurdity, is what u dare use the conception of what justify any and all so truth, as being concept of infinite oppositions, how dare u use the concept of definitive still justifications for opposite justifications, when u cant explain or u dont want to invent justifications to ur fake pretenses about opposites legitimacy, then assume ur responsability there of willing it, u cant call it truth, morons

for wat?? only for what u know that there is no beyond truth to kick ur lies, that only truth would have to deal with it, so being its opposite so it has to be ur opposite too, pervert infinite hypocrits conscious wills u r gonna see who is superior and who is inferior by force, n what we do with ur gods intelligence to keep it all the ways that way

beyond truth?? any free right sense like me is enough, facing all ur much more free stands facts choosing lies in abusing objective rights for pleasure of cheap superior possessions

why?

bc truth is neutrally positive, so freedom sense from knowing it is subjectively imediate without being true nor right

when truth is neutrally positive then truth exist and since truth exist then it is the right to b more always
then ur freedom is first target to demolish totally



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
n ur means to think that u can escape by forcing rights to prove lies is pathetic

when truth is never to b proved since it is only what is known, then lies are already proven, morons

the fact is to kill u not to prove u



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Wang Tang
 


I watched that documentary what the bleep do we know.. It said there is a lab in the US where the same object is in two places at the same time...



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
I think you are making a mistake by including location in your definition of an object unless the difference in location affects the object physically, which in most cases it does not.

That said I don't think any objects are exactly identical. Even those objects we may view as identical are only identical up to our ability to measure them.



Thanks. I thought the same about location, but I'm too ignorant on the topic to make such a claim.

What I need to ask is: When considering two objects, how identical does this philosophy want to get? Are we talking about objects that are only very similar, or so identical that the objects can be considered to be one in the same?

The cells in our bodies create new cells all the time, with the exact same information as the old cells. Doesn't cloning create two identical creatures?



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Thanks. I thought the same about location, but I'm too ignorant on the topic to make such a claim.

What I need to ask is: When considering two objects, how identical does this philosophy want to get? Are we talking about objects that are only very similar, or so identical that the objects can be considered to be one in the same?

The cells in our bodies create new cells all the time, with the exact same information as the old cells. Doesn't cloning create two identical creatures?


Identical as in completely identical in all possible ways. Physically identical. Situationally identical. Philosophically identical.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Wang Tang
 


I watched that documentary what the bleep do we know.. It said there is a lab in the US where the same object is in two places at the same time...


Yes I've read about this I think it has to do with quantum mechanics and it's one of physics' major dilemmas. In this case, the fact that an object can be in two places at the same time does raise complications for identity proofs... This is going to take me a while to wrap my head around how exactly this development effects identity proofs. Very nice point though.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join