If no two things can occupy the same place in space or time, then how can any two things be identical?

Is identity natural?

Or is it something that we blindly stipulate as to impose order on a novel and ever changing state of nature?

I know that 1=1, but that’s only because we create symbols for that particular concept which by definition mean that 1 is identical to 1.

But are there really any two objects which we could substitute for those two 1’s which wouldn’t invalidate the equation?

I tend to view it on the lines of this quoted post. :slight_smile:

( Interesting thread Smears. :slight_smile: Well done.)

Identity is for the insecure. The insecure desire, or latch onto, indentities to stave off the existential anxieties created by the world of becoming. When everything is perpetually becoming, nothing remains stagnant. Therefore, identity is little more than an exercise in psychical stability. The herd animal shouts, “I am important, my life has meaning, my existence is justified because I have an identity” In a nutshell, identity proceeds from weakness.

Ok first off good questions Smears =D>

Second: Fent get a grip, I notice you have a name tag. Your identity comes through in your posts so geez.


2+2=1 if we stipulate that four objects =1group

so 2 can =1 with that stipulation

so we can substitute 2=2 or 2=1 without invalidating 1=1

Symbols mean what we stipulate them to mean. A rock is more than just a rock yet If you crush it, it is still is.

but,the only thing I can think of that two identical things occupying the same place at the same time is the moments before the zygote? or whatever it is called(mind blank :laughing: ), splits into two seperate entities and creating identical twins. For that brief time two identical objects occupy the same place at the same time sort of.

That’s not the kind of identity that I was referring to. That is just a name so I can log in and post, nothing more, it has no bearing on the continual flux of phenomena we experience everyday. Please understand the context of the argument before commenting.

Now see “your Identity comes through in your posts” was totally ignored by you, You saw name tag and boom went through to different context.
Name is merely a label of part of your identity. Context of identity is wholeness of one.

Your name is not your identity, that is just a label. All living creatures create identity complex or simple even plants do this to an extent.

Is it possible that the components of like atoms could be alike? Like the neutrons, protons or even the atoms themselves?

The plant only has an identity because we human beings says it has. Human beings can only create identities, of themselves, by freezing time, their thoughts, and the world around them. To have an identity, one’s internal disposition would have to have remained static from birth up until the second before one reads this post, so would have the physical phenomena around them.

Ahh, I see so the concept of individual identity is is only limited to sentient humans. Nothing else is capable of being able to differentiate individual identity their own or other. Interesting concept. I must be observing the world from a different perspective because that is not what I notice, read, observe or conclude.

Smears - identity as an idea in mathemeatics means only what you say it does. This is okay, because numbers aren’t real.

But, in real life, no two things can be identical. Did someone tell you that they can be? Just go and punch that person in the nose.

Of course, two things can be identical “enough”. And two words may have identical meanings. The word, outside mathematics (logic) is used about as loosely as most words are. Try not to get too upset about it. Maybe punching that person will help relieve some stress.

Does the plant call itself a plant? Does the plant collect, collate, and categorize data in an epistemological sense?

Um, plant is our name for it, so why would it use our language? I would think the word plant or the concept of it would be a bit sophisticated for a plant to identify itself as such. Lets think molecular or submolecular. You want identity to be connected to a language comparable to vocal human. Why? Do you not realize that scent, that vibration, that temperature, etc. are languages interpreted by nonsentient creatures and plant life?

Are you so egotistical that only humans can have language or identity? Please, dear heavens go to school and study sciences. Do you understand fully what a foot print is in science? Why does dandelion pollen only fertilize another dandelion plant? And why does identity have to be sophisticated? Curb your ego and look at this living planet with an eye towards reason ,thought and logic that does not have to do with the human species being the center or the Predominant species.

To state it again, what the plant is or does can only be understood through our observation and language. If the plant has an identity, it would still be a human interpretation. ‘Scent’, vibration’, and ‘tempertaure’ are human words used to describe plant life. Unless you think plants talk to you in their own langauge?

why must we have to understand it? and if I don’t use my language for objects, what language should I use? I am pretty sure a cow knows and understands what a plant is in a basic cow sense. Just because its different does not mean it does not exist from the perspective of the cow’s understanding of the plant’s identity. A blueberry plant can’t breed with a dandelion. So there must be some basic form of identity there on a sub molecular level at least.

If plants talk to me, I wouldn’t know, I have not bothered to ask one yet, because we don’t speak the same language except in the most basic form of living. You want to be right about such limitations, I feel for you but, it just ain’t so.

New question…

Can anyone give me an example of two things, besides numbers or symbols which DO NOT share any identical properties? Are there any two conceivable things which in absolutley NO WAY have any stipulatable,(is that even a word?) identity?

Smears, I’m not sure you asked the question the way you meant to. You are inviting some sort of metaphysics here, through a misunderstanding of words. Did you mean to ask if there are any phenomenal objects that share all properties?

Depending upon what you call a property, many things share some properties, if for no other reason than that language is vague enough for this.

I know that no two things can share the all the same properties, or else there wouldn’t be two of them. Right? That wouldn’t make sense. But are there any two things that share absolutley no properties at all? I’m really just taking stabs at identity theory to see where my questions lead. I don’t yet have a hypothesis of my own.

Well, if the only things that you ascribe properties to exist in spacetime, then they share that “property”.

A “property” is just part of the description of the world, or one small slice of it. But we will always use spatial co-ordinates in such descriptions. The only entities that could escape this are metaphysical ones.

In which case, the sky’s the limit.

Well, not even the sky is the limit.

But everything that is, has mass, for instance.