Do You Have a Solution For Philosophy's Identity Problem?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Ok, let's wait until the op comes back and see if he/she can put us straight.
I don't see anything in the op which says anything about 'value' - maybe i am wrong, i hope Wang Tang can clear this up.

edit on 2-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

No the OP doesn't say value. I used the word value to try to explain why A and B is used. It's basically algebra but instead of numbers it's real world objects. "A" and "B" are not connected to the objects at all, they are names, they do not affect whether the two objects are identical or not. They have to have names so we can refer to them and differentiate them.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Ok, let's wait until the op comes back and see if he/she can put us straight.
I don't see anything in the op which says anything about 'value' - maybe i am wrong, i hope Wang Tang can clear this up.

edit on 2-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

No the OP doesn't say value. I used the word value to try to explain why A and B is used. It's basically algebra but instead of numbers it's real world objects. "A" and "B" are not connected to the objects at all, they are names, they do not affect whether the two objects are identical or not. They have to have names so we can refer to them and differentiate them.

The op uses A and B as objects for you to see - two different objects. They do not 'represent' objects - they are the objects in question. They appear to be different.
Object A looks different than object B.

This is the first line of the entire thread:

Originally posted by Wang Tang
It is a simple question: can two objects be identical?

reply to post by Wang Tang


OBJ B = OBJ B
OBJ C = OBJ C
OBJ D = OBJ D

They are all seperate.
maybe

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Ok, let's wait until the op comes back and see if he/she can put us straight.
I don't see anything in the op which says anything about 'value' - maybe i am wrong, i hope Wang Tang can clear this up.

edit on 2-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

No the OP doesn't say value. I used the word value to try to explain why A and B is used. It's basically algebra but instead of numbers it's real world objects. "A" and "B" are not connected to the objects at all, they are names, they do not affect whether the two objects are identical or not. They have to have names so we can refer to them and differentiate them.

The op uses A and B as objects for you to see - two different objects. They do not 'represent' objects - they are the objects in question. They appear to be different.
Object A looks different than object B.

This is the first line of the entire thread:

Originally posted by Wang Tang
It is a simple question: can two objects be identical?

edit on 2-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Yeah if you're literally comparing the letters then of course they're not identical. I was using A and B to represent things, like OP uses "OBJ A" and so on. In these cases what they're referred to as doesn't matter.

OP says "if these objects are identical", which means A and B represent an object, which means A and B are just names.

Originally posted by SpearMint

OP says "if these objects are identical", which means A and B represent an object, which means A and B are just names.

edit on 2-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Let's wait and see what Wang Tang says.
In my opinion A and B are the objects.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by SpearMint

OP says "if these objects are identical", which means A and B represent an object, which means A and B are just names.

edit on 2-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Let's wait and see what Wang Tang says.
In my opinion A and B are the objects.

edit on 2-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

If the objects were literally the letters and the letters didn't represent something else then "if these objects are identical" wouldn't make sense. It's like saying "if 2 equals 7".

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by SpearMint

OP says "if these objects are identical", which means A and B represent an object, which means A and B are just names.

edit on 2-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Let's wait and see what Wang Tang says.
In my opinion A and B are the objects.

edit on 2-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

If the objects were literally the letters and the letters didn't represent something else then "if these objects are identical" wouldn't make sense. It's like saying "if 2 equals 7".

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Let's wait and see what Wang Tang says.
In my opinion A and B are the objects.

As the OP stated it is a language problem.

Instead of thinking of this in a "values" sense, you need to think of this in an object sense.

You have two cameras. The exact same make, model, manufacturer. However, despite them being exactly the same in every aspect, they are still separate and distinct objects.

They may have the same value, but they are not the same object.
Their location will always be different - try as you might, you aren't going to get two physical cameras to exist in exactly the same location.
Their creation was (and will always have been) different. Even if they came out of the same manufacturing line, one of them was produced at a slightly different time and place then the other.

Let's take a walk down thought lane. An object is made up of many other smaller parts. So in our instance of the cameras, let's start using the exact same parts for both cameras. Let's start with a shared wrist strap. Next, lets share a side panel between the both cameras. Imagine, if you will, a slow mutation of two cameras, into a hybrid mix of two cameras, sharing more and more parts. Eventually, if we take this to it's logical conclusion. Instead of two cameras, we only have one camera.

Going back to the OP.
Object A is Object A and is not Object B
Object B is Object B and is not Object A
With this in mind is there any situation where we could then say, Object A is Object B?

And although the parallel universe theory is interesting, you still wind up with two separate objects - one in universe A and one in universe B. Identical as they may be, they are not exactly the same object (dimensionality, time, and space are still different).

Even if we try some linguistic gymnastics it doesn't work out.
Object A is hot (using hot to describe Object A).
Object B is hot (using hot to describe Object B).
You can't say hot is Object A because that would imply that the whole of "hot" were contained in Object A, meaning that by extension you could not say hot is Object B without returning back to our original logical problem.

The only thing which could come close to this would be looking at quantum entanglement. Split a particle up, send one of its probabilities off to a distant universe. Tickle the other one, and the distant one will react. This gets interesting as, according to the strangeness of Physics these are considered to be exactly the same particle - however, because they no longer share the same space/time locality, it is hard to truly identify them as identical objects - since, by nature the concept of identical implies everything being identical (referring back to the OP's multiple dimension solution).

Stepping out of our box of logic, however, and looking at it from a esoteric perspective (or even string theory or quantum mechanics), both of those particles are simply "physical manifestations" of a larger, underlying "thing" (wave function, string, etc...). So in this regards, we have the same thing, but different "perceptions" of it.

Thus we come to a shifted solution:
Object A is THING X viewed at a 50' distance
Object B is THING X viewed at a 300' distance
Object A is Object A. Object A is not Object B
Object B is Object B. Object B is not Object A
However, THING X is THING X and is a projection from both Object A and Object B
*** Or if that is to hard to read
THING X viewed at a 50' distance is not the same as THING X viewed at a 300' distance
THING X viewed at a 300' distance is not the same as THING X viewed at a 50' distance
But regardless of how I view it, THING X is still THING X

But then again, this goes back to the OP's reference of it being a language problem not a logic problem.

Originally posted by kamebard

And although the parallel universe theory is interesting, you still wind up with two separate objects - one in universe A and one in universe B. Identical as they may be, they are not exactly the same object (dimensionality, time, and space are still different).

Split a particle up, send one of its probabilities off to a 'distant universe'. Tickle the other one, and the distant one will react. This gets interesting as, according to the strangeness of Physics these are considered to be exactly the same particle - however, because they no longer share the same space/time locality, it is hard to truly identify them as identical objects - since, by nature the concept of identical implies everything being identical (referring back to the OP's multiple dimension solution).

.

There is an assumed 'other universe' in your post.

All there is is what is appearing presently. No one has ever experienced anything outside of the present moment. All percieving is done now.
The image that is appearing can be split into many separate 'objects' but in reality it is one whole image. The image experienced is never the same. It is ever changing but it is seen and known to be changing by an unchanging presence.

reply to post by Wang Tang


Good work Wang Tang.

I agree with Wittgenstein that the problems of philosophy are merely problems of language.

Take for instance the mind-body problem and the problem of universals. Both issues stem from the misuse of language; and when we argue a certain view, we are only arguing about the language we use.

On topic:

There cannot be two identical things.

If Aristotle's Law of Contradiction is considered fundamental, nothing can be what it isn't. An object cannot be identical to something else, unless it isn't what it already is—its own object. An object can only be identical to another object if it was that other object, which is a paradox and impossible. Something can only appear identical, not be identical.

OBJ A can only ever be OBJ A (A = A). This is a tautology (⊤) which is always true. If OBJ A (A) branches into OBJ B (B) and OBJ C (C), the equation changes (I'm not well-versed in symbolic logic, so may be expressed wrong) to [B ∧ C = A] = A, basically the same as A = A, meaning B and C is still A, and A hasn't become something that it isn't.

Logic here stands its ground.

Anyways...I hope this pertains to your example. I could be off.

Side note:

It's good to hear someone reading Wittgenstein, one of my favorite modern philosophers. Make sure to read Philosophical Investigations if you haven't already. Wittgenstein changes his views on language slightly from what he said in Tractartus. Basically he destroys thousands of years of metaphysical speculations and philosophy, and it's a beautiful thing.

Originally posted by Wang Tang

Let us take a look at the logic here:
OBJ A = OBJ B
OBJ A = OBJ C
OBJ A = OBJ D

OBJ B = OBJ C
OBJ C = OBJ D?

Like others said its a language problem.

In the schematic a chance is involved:

OBJ A = OBJ B ...... OBJ A is not yet OBJ B but OBJ A can become OBJ B
OBJ A = OBJ B ...... OBJ A is not yet OBJ C but OBJ A can become OBJ C
OBJ A = OBJ B ...... OBJ A is not yet OBJ D but OBJ A can become OBJ D

OBJ A IS existing
OBJ B,C&D are probabilities

If we stay in one universe (!)

OBJ B can not be OBJ C and both can not be OBJ D. as chance implies one (!) result and two others are non-existent.

If we consider multiple universes (!)

All the objects contain the value (!) universe for the argument called (UNI1 UNI2 & UNI3)
As all the OBJ B,C&D derrived from OBJ A, we could call them former OBJ A like OBJ fA

OBJ fA(UNI1) is not the same as OBJ fA(UNI2) and both are not the same as OBJ fA(UNI3) but all derrivd from OBJ A




Did I make sense?

I've seen a lot of great points so far, I'll try to hit on them all in this one post.

SilentKoala, I appreciate you bringing in Java and the idea of there being a distinction between "=" and "==". I think there is something to be learned from computer language about identities. I think we should look into it more, but I also want to point out that we have to be careful how we use the term "value." Value does not mean the same thing in computer language as it does with physical objects, as Itisnowagain has pointed out. Value is a mathematical term which implies that you are quantifying an object. I don't think it is appropriate to quantify physical objects using this idea of value... what is the value of a human compared to the value of a rock? I think what you are calling "value" is what I refer to as extrinsic and intrinsic properties.

I don't know if what I view as the term "value" is the same as everyone else's, so the definition and appropriate use of "value" is also something we should clarify.

SpearMint, I see you try to define value as "the physical object," and I thank you for throwing a definition of value out there. I love what you say about what A and B represent:

Originally posted by SpearMint
"A and B are irrelevant, like I said, all they are names so we can actually understand the problem. Literally the only thing that matters is what they represent."

This reminds me of another Wittgenstein quote.

"What can be shown cannot be said."
-Wittgenstein

Essentially he is saying language cannot convey the exact information that a picture presents, it will always present an imperfect idea of what the picture presents. Language cannot represent what something IS, it can only present an imperfect model of what something is.

I am inclined to believe even if it's possible for two objects to be identical, we can't do so through our current language, because our language does not have the capacity to describe such a phenomenom.

SpearMint, you also bring up an interesting idea that location doesn't matter in the universe, and this brings up a lot of fascinating implications. However, it is also a false proposition because according to our perception there IS location. It would be contradictory to state "according to my perception of this world I have concluded that our perception is wrong, therefore locations do not exist in this universe." I think it's interesting to think about the possibilities of what a location-less universe would imply but I don't think it's a valid argument.

Kamebard, you wrote an excellent overview of the identity problem. You touch on exactly what I was thinking of when you refer to the strangeness of quantum physics, and the new philosophical possibilities it presents us with. I also love your idea of particles being physical manifestations of a larger, underlying thing, where "we have the same thing, but different perceptions of it."

reply to post by IgnorantSquare

Originally posted by IgnorantSquare
OBJ fA(UNI1) is not the same as OBJ fA(UNI2) and both are not the same as OBJ fA(UNI3) but all derived from OBJ A.

Great! Your logical language makes it more clear what the properties of each object are. You point out that even though OBJ fA(UNI3) is derived from the same OBJ A it is still different from the other two OBJs. However, I don't know how you claim that OBJ fA(UNI1) is not the same as OBJ fA(UNI2). They both have the same intrinsic and extrinsic properties and exist in what we could call "mirror universes," and are derived from the same OBJ A.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Wang Tang

 

OBJ A can only ever be OBJ A (A = A). This is a tautology (⊤) which is always true. If OBJ A (A) branches into OBJ B (B) and OBJ C (C), the equation changes (I'm not well-versed in symbolic logic, so may be expressed wrong) to [B ∧ C = A] = A, basically the same as A = A, meaning B and C is still A, and A hasn't become something that it isn't.

Logic here stands its ground.

B and C is still A, and A hasn't become something it isn't. But you recognize that there are now 2 A's and not one, represented by B and C. So aren't B and C identical?

Sidenote, it is great to hear there's other Wittgenstein readers out there. Great stuff.

My challenge to everyone, come up with an argument or logical proof to disprove my proposition in the OP. We'll know our language can't PROVE two things to be identical, we'll see if it can PROVE two things can't be identical.

Originally posted by Wang Tang
reply to post by IgnorantSquare

 

Originally posted by IgnorantSquare
OBJ fA(UNI1) is not the same as OBJ fA(UNI2) and both are not the same as OBJ fA(UNI3) but all derived from OBJ A.

Great! Your logical language makes it more clear what the properties of each object are. You point out that even though OBJ fA(UNI3) is derived from the same OBJ A it is still different from the other two OBJs. However, I don't know how you claim that OBJ fA(UNI1) is not the same as OBJ fA(UNI2). They both have the same intrinsic and extrinsic properties and exist in what we could call "mirror universes," and are derived from the same OBJ A.

Again I would think it is language. For the sake of the argument... if we would consider mirror universes (UNI1&UNI2 ) as exact complete copies (or whatever you want to call it)and see UNI3 as a different universe, there shouldn't be a reason to divide the chance between MIRROR1 and MIRROR2. the argument would be stated as 2/3rds of a chance for the mirror universe (as mirror universe explains it will happen in both and 1/3rd of a chance for UNI3.

So the statement:
1/3rd of a chance for UNI1
1/3rd of a chance for UNI2
1/3rd of a chance for UNI3

implies differences between UNI1 and UNI2

OR

there is 1/3rd of a chance for some other outcome

(Uhmm how do I explain this... if you need to pick 1 number ranging from 1 to 10 you have 1/2 a chance you pick 2,4,6,8 or 10, and also 1/2 a chance you pick an "even" number.. so you have 2*1/2 but that doesn’t mean 2*1/2 is 1. 1 should be the chance for the total probable outcome)

Sorry but it is a play with words I know

If we are able to perceive different "exactly the same" OBJ or UNI or MIRRORUNI we would imply differentiation between them to categorize them as the same, by labelling them they would have different values ;

Originally posted by IgnorantSquare
Again I would think it is language. For the sake of the argument... if we would consider mirror universes (UNI1&UNI2 ) as exact complete copies (or whatever you want to call it)and see UNI3 as a different universe, there shouldn't be a reason to divide the chance between MIRROR1 and MIRROR2. the argument would be stated as 2/3rds of a chance for the mirror universe (as mirror universe explains it will happen in both and 1/3rd of a chance for UNI3.

So you are saying in the event that there are 2 possible courses of action, there is no need to create 3 branching universes. I say that is a fair point to make. So why do I seemingly unnecessarily create 3 branches instead of 2?

If a sphere has a 2/3 chance of turning blue and a 1/3 chance of turning green, how do you explain why one course of action is more likely than the other?

I say this event will produce three branching universes in order to account for the fact that one course of action is more likely than the other. I'm not saying this is how it works in reality, I'm just saying it's in the realm of possibility therefore we should consider it in order to find if it is in the realm of possibility for two objects to be identical.

Originally posted by IgnorantSquare

If we are able to perceive different "exactly the same" OBJ or UNI or MIRRORUNI we would imply differentiation between them to categorize them as the same, by labelling them they would have different values

This differentiation between the two objects, is it a differentiation created by language, or an actual differentiation?

reply to post by Wang Tang


It is actually really tough and leads to some paradoxes.

We might have to continue with the branching analogy. Those branches (OBJB & OBJC & OBJD) stem from, and are made of, the tree (OBJA).

In other words, OBJB and OBJC is a member of the set OBJA

OBJB ∧ OBJC ∧ OBJD ∈ OBJA

In other words, OBJA begets or implies OBJB, OBJC and OBJD.

OBJA ⊨ (OBJB ∧ OBJC ∧ OBJD ∧ OBJE)

But with a universe analogy, it becomes more difficult. If universe1, splits into three universes, it becomes all of those three universes. To avoid the Russell's Paradox, no longer can we call it universe1, as it now The Multiverse, or that which contains all universes. It becomes a set, or a tree, with the other universes its branches.

I don't know if this confuses things...

Difficult topic, bravo.

reply to post by Wang Tang

If a sphere has a 2/3 chance of turning blue and a 1/3 chance of turning green, how do you explain why one course of action is more likely than the other?

I honestly don't know what the triggers for colour changing are, as those variables are not given, only that it will turn.

My late brother always said: "you can't walk on one leg" So I would argue there are two possibilities for turning green and 4 turning blue, it is just a matter for dividing.. why did you choose three and not six??

Probably for you chose 3 for the most logical mathematical account, divide it by equal shares in as low shares as possible

This differentiation between the two objects, is it a differentiation created by language, or an actual differentiation?

There are at least 3 objects, the two identical and one subject (person, group, machinery, deity.. etc.) that perceives them as two.

As you say objects, I will use objects to explain lets say cubes and we agree they are identical:

If I place two cubes next to each other I have a left and a right
If I place a cube today on my table and a different one tomorrow at the exact same place and position, we would have a present and future object, or a past and future object, or a past and present object, as they would be dated
If I place the two cubes on the exact same time on the exact same position how would I be able to perceive them as two?
I think we are limited to our language (and with language in this sentence I don't focus on grammar and words but also on the way we are limited in our senses in how and why we see and understand things) One of the first things to establish two things are identical is to establish (not assume) there are two.

Im not really deep into the quantum physics but, when we could use two identical particle for, as example, instant communication over long distances they would have different positions. As in your example image we have a left and a right "red" chance

I say this event will produce three branching universes in order to account for the fact that one course of action is more likely than the other.

That is true, but we also would have the branch, not turning at all, no creation of sphere, turning into a cube, turning into different colour then red or green and so on.

It would be intresting to think about: before UNI A was created there would be a split that would imply a split to UNI X where a cube was created that turned red and another split that turnd the red cube into a red sphere that connected to UNI B

So the differences between UNI B and UNI C could be future related, although not perceivable for now.

reply to post by Wang Tang


The Wang Tang Paradox.

A cookie (A) breaks itself into three pieces (B,C,D). A is no longer a cookie, but a set of cookies. By breaking itself, it negates itself.

No solution.

Two identical objects like two left shoes of the same brand found in a store? no. Two atoms of an element as found on the periodic table? yes.