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

reply to post by LesMisanthrope




I believe this is the picture you were painting.

But even if we accept that the branching universes exist within a multiverse, does that prove anything?

Our conception of space-time would not apply to universes within a multiverse because they are separated in a way that is impossible for us to percieve.

reply to post by IgnorantSquare


Yes you are right the reason I made only 3 branches is to keep the picture as simple as possible. Obviously if this is actually how the multiverse works, there will be possibly an infinite number of branches.

You mention that there are 2 objects, and 1 subject perceiving both objects. But I disagree, if you perceive 2 separate objects they are not identical. Therefore you would have to only be able to perceive 1 object, and the other object would be unperceivable... hidden from perception.

reply to post by Wang Tang

Obviously if this is actually how the multiverse works, there will be possibly an infinite number of branches.

True but didn't multiverses branche because of the differences?

So we could say exact same white cube, exact same position and orientation, exact same time , but one with a blue neighbour and one with a red neighbour? The question would be if two objects would be the exact same thing if there would be different outside forces. (reflecting blue or reflecting red)

IMO a mirror universe is something else then one universe in a multiverse.

Therefore you would have to only be able to perceive 1 object, and the other object would be unperceivable... hidden from perception.

Can we perceive theoretical or mathematical? If we can proof (100%) the existence of a mirror universe I keep this in mind:

But I disagree, if you perceive 2 separate objects (mirror universes) they are not identical.

I just read the 1st post of the thread.

It is simple.

A and B... are not the same... but IDENTICAL. You could see it as A1 and A2. A1 and A2 are identical structures mainly A. But there are two of em. Since there are two different identical structures, they are not the same.

That's definetly what you wanted to hear.

It is possible it has already been explained in the thread.

Applause to that person.

reply to post by IgnorantSquare


To answer your question, if the white cube's neighbors are different colors, the two white cubes would not be identical becuase its spatial-temporal relations would not be the same.

As Wittgenstein says, "space, time, and color are forms of objects" (Tractatus 2.0251).

If we accept Wittgenstein's claim, then for two objects to have equal relational identities, the objects' surroundings must be the same distance away, the same color, and exist at the same time.

Using this definition of identity (space, time, color) I can prove the possibility of two objects being identical.

Let's accept the existence of two mirror universes. A subject is attempting to prove that two spheres in mirror universes can be identical. In the mirror universes, the spheres have the same relational identities, along with the same intrinsic and extrinsic properties. The subject would be constrained by the fact that he can only percieve one of the two objects because you can't have two identical objects existing in the same universe.

However, you also have to consider that there are two subjects, since there are mirror universes. If you tell the subject to percieve the sphere, you are telling both versions of the subject. That brings up the question, which subject is the test subject? Is there a real subject and a mirror subject? No, both subjects are equally "real." This means the two subjects are both percieving the same sphere at the same place at the same time, and both of their perceptions are equally valid.

That means just by percieving one object, the subject is actually performing the act of percieving two objects by two subjects. Just simply by percieving the object, the subject has proven that the spheres are identical.

I'm already starting to run through the counter-arguments to the claim I just made, one of them being I'm not using the word "identical" correctly.

Originally posted by Angle
A and B... are not the same... but IDENTICAL...

I really appreciate that you differentiate between "same" and "identical." This differentiation is key to accepting or denying the existence of identical objects. Again, this is a problem of language, and I'm not sure I agree with you that "same" and "identical" have different meanings in this context. If anything I see "same" as a weaker relation than "identical," but that is just based on its context in everyday use.

Right, it's like you find one to have a necklace. He stole it from you, then it is the same. If he didn't steal it, he has an identical one. We talk about an object to be the same if it changed place in the 'matrix'?

Originally posted by Angle
Right, it's like you find one to have a necklace. He stole it from you, then it is the same. If he didn't steal it, he has an identical one. We talk about an object to be the same if it changed place in the 'matrix'?

You are using the word "identical" the way it is used in common everyday language. When you say two objects are "identical" in philosophy, you have to push aside our common everyday use of the word, and strip the word down to its fundamental meaning. The word "identical" is used very loosely in everyday language, and most often not according to the word's actual definition.

In philosophy the criteria for two objects to be identical is very strict. They must have the same extrinsic properties (in other words, physical properties like color, weight, density, volume, etc.), intrinsic properties (same origin, existing at the same time, etc.), and relational properties (both objects must be influenced by its surroundings in the same way, so if the objects' surroundings are different, the objects cannot be identical).

This just goes back to Wittgenstein's claim that all philosophical problems can be traced back to problems in language. I don't necessarily agree, I think the identity problem is still a genuine philosophical problem, but it does seem the majority of disagreements in philosophy stem from a misuse and misunderstanding of language.

'Identical' and 'the same' is the same.

Originally posted by Angle
'Identical' and 'the same' is the same.

Then it follows that "identical" and "the same" are also identical.

It seems we are now moving our debate from whether two objects can be identical to whether two words can be identical. Bravo, Angle, for steering the conversation to this dilema that i had not previously thought of, this is very interesting.

How can we possibly prove the phrases "identical" and "the same" to be identical when we are using a word to be defined as the defining word?

Can we even come up with a sufficient definition of the idea of "the same" or "identical"?

And once again we are back to Wittgenstein's proposition that all philosophical problems stem from problems in language.

Yes, but 'Identical' and 'the same' can on their own be used for 'differen't things. Like:

Identical is the same, but the same isn't therefore identical for the same can be used for one thing on it's own. You can point your finger to a computer, and say: "This computer, is the same as, and then you turn around and come up to 'the same' computer again and say: 'As this one'. That is the true meaning of the same. We speak about Identical when we have two objects of the same definitions.

Yaa!

So, short, identical is about two objects. A same object is same to its own. Two different objects aren't the same, for if you destroy one of them, it isn't the same anymore. Better, in essence the two objects aren't the same. Now you must get it.

How I do love identical objects..

Originally posted by Angle
Yes, but 'Identical' and 'the same' can on their own be used for 'differen't things. Like:

Identical is the same, but the same isn't therefore identical for the same can be used for one thing on it's own. You can point your finger to a computer, and say: "This computer, is the same as, and then you turn around and come up to 'the same' computer again and say: 'As this one'. That is the true meaning of the same. We speak about Identical when we have two objects of the same definitions.

Yaa!

So, short, identical is about two objects. A same object is same to its own. Two different objects aren't the same, for if you destroy one of them, it isn't the same anymore. Better, in essence the two objects aren't the same. Now you must get it.

How I do love identical objects..

Here are various dictionary definitions of "same" and "identical."

Definitions of identical:
similar or alike in every way.
numerically identical: being one and the same individual. Tully and Cicero are identical.
quantitatively identical: exactly alike, equal, or agreeing.

Definitions of same:
being one or identical though having different names. Tully and Cicero are the same person.
being of equal value, amount. These boxes have the same dimensions.
having matching characteristics. Both of these shirts are the same color.
things being alike in kind, degree, quality, being identical with.

Their meanings are similar, but not identical. They can be used in the same/identical situations in some instances, but depending on context sometimes you have to use one or the other.

Yes, the dictionary, our savior on this subject.

It couldn't tell it better. The same is one and the same.

Identical one uses when talking about two different objects.

Originally posted by Angle
The same is one and the same.

Identical one uses when talking about two different objects.

Not so!

Tully and Cicero are identical.
Tully and Cicero are the same person.

Both identical and same can be used to describe one object that has two different names.

Identical can also be used to describe two objects that are "exactly alike, equal, or agreeing."

Same is not used to describe two objects are equal, it is used to describe properties of two objects that are equal; for example, these shirts are the same color. As you said, same is primarily concerned with "one and the same," it attributes properties of two objects (such as shirts) to one characteristic (such as color), but it does not have the power to say "two separate objects are the same."

What I'm getting at is identical in theory is a more versatile word because it can be used with one or multiple objects. However, since we can't prove that two separate objects can actually be identical, in practice the meanings of identical and same are almost the same.

reply to post by Wang Tang


I'd say identical is not used for one and the same object.