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
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.
edit on 2-2-2013 by kamebard because: Clarified the last step of the perception chain