Different, but the same

@YumClock,

YumClock;101130 wrote:

So what is the difference between twins?
If neither has been physically damaged and both siblings have been brought up in the same household, their physical properties should be very similar. The only thing truly different would be their minds, which is a very small change in the physical structure of their brains.
Different objects made from the same mold can have larger differences than the proposed twins in their physical properties, yet they are still called identical.

The difference is that there are two of them, and not just one of them. "Identical twins" just come from the same ovum. "Identical" there does not mean there is one person, not two.

@kennethamy,

Has anybody mentioned that of spatial location? What makes the fryin pan X the same as before and after it went through environmental factors was its spatial location. Additionally, frying pan X is type identical to all frying pans but not token identical to frying pan Y because perhaps of its spatial location? I dont know but its just a thought...

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;101152 wrote:

The difference is that there are two of them, and not just one of them. "Identical twins" just come from the same ovum. "Identical" there does not mean there is one person, not two.

So why was it needed to assert that smoking habits and height was attributed to identity? It was clear from the start that we are not the same person.

@YumClock,

YumClock;101161 wrote:

So why was it needed to assert that smoking habits and height was attributed to identity? It was clear from the start that we are not the same person.

I don't understand your question. If X and Y do not have the same height, then X is not identical with Y.

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;101159 wrote:

Has anybody mentioned that of spatial location? What makes the fryin pan X the same as before and after it went through environmental factors was its spatial location. Additionally, frying pan X is type identical to all frying pans but not token identical to frying pan Y because perhaps of its spatial location? I dont know but its just a thought...

We started out wondering what it means to say X does not exist. How could we make statements about it, if it doesn't exist?

We solved that problem by noticing that if it appears in a sentence, the idea of it is self evident. How exactly an idea exists is a separate issue. But we learned that the sentence "It doesn't exist" means that there is no object with the properties of it.

We may have then been sucked up into an idea tornado in which we're having trouble distinguishing between it as a category and it as an object in the space-time continuum.

It, the category, has properties that may be spoken of. That's because we created the category. The category is an abstraction. It has no physical representation. When I say that you belong to the human category, I'm saying that out of my experience, I have, through the magic box of Intellect, discovered that certain things have similarities. Those similarities are listed off as the definition of it as a type, kind, or category.

It as a unique actuality is a whole 'nuther can of worms. Sibling problems with nailing down the properties of it, as an actuality, came to light: flux, and the fact that properties are always discerned from some point of view. Reason suggests that there is no all-encompassing viewpoint from which all of it's properties can be observed, even if those properties weren't constantly in flux, which we assume they are. I think this part of the conversation exited stage left and went out for a beverage.

But if it's not too hung over when it comes back, I think it might show that we're back in trouble with our original solution to what it means to say It doesn't exist. Does location help with this?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;100746 wrote:

But the question is (turning to frying pans) what makes my frying pan numerically different from your frying pan? After all, your frying pan and my frying pan both are circular shape, raised sides, handle, made of metal of some type. But, nevertheless, they are numerically different frying pans. There are two frying pans, and not just one. So, those properties cannot be the essential properties on my frying pan as contrasted with yours. But my original question was whether the my frying pan when hot is the very same (numerically identical with) the frying pan when cold.

Our frying pans are different because your frying pan would only be the same as my frying pan if, and only if, every property of your frying pan were the property of my frying pan and every property of my frying pan were the property of your frying pan.

It would seem that our frying pans are numerically different in that they cannot occupy the same point in space and time and still be considered individual frying pans. They are, as you note, two frying pans, and not just one.

The essential properties of each of our frying pans are what make that particular frying pan . . . that particular frying pan (e.g. brand, size, shape, model, material, and position in space and time).

When the frying pan is heated, its individual essential properties, that is, the properties associated with that particular frying pan as noted above, (whether it is being observed or not) remain unchanged. If there are any changes, such as expansion and contraction due to the heating and cooling process, these become properties (although temporary or accidental) of the frying pan.

The frying pan does not become something else at any point in the heating and cooling process, unless it is heated to such a degree that it melts into a puddle of liquid metal . . . at which point it is no longer a frying pan, and takes on a new set of properties to reflect its current state.

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;101288 wrote:

Our frying pans are different because your frying pan would only be the same as my frying pan if, and only if, every property of your frying pan were the property of my frying pan and every property of my frying pan were the property of your frying pan.

It would seem that our frying pans are numerically different in that they cannot occupy the same point in space and time and still be considered individual frying pans. They are, as you note, two frying pans, and not just one.

His cold frying pan can't occupy the same point in space and time as his hot one. So by this argument, it would follow that they aren't the same pan.

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;101314 wrote:

His cold frying pan can't occupy the same point in space and time as his hot one. So by this argument, it would follow that they aren't the same pan.

It is the same frying pan, as it is numerically identical with itself, regardless of its temperature. There is no "they" about it.

That is, there are not two frying pans. There is one frying pan that at one time has the properties associated with a hot frying pan, and at another time has the properties associated with a cold frying pan.

Changes in temperature and the associated changes in an object's molecular structure occur along a timeline, not simultaneously . . . which is why you are correct in saying that a cold frying pan and a hot frying pan cannot occupy the same point in time and space.

I would not argue, however, that they are not the same frying pan. Why would I?

If I break eggs into the frying pan and apply heat to the frying pan, I am cooking the eggs in the same frying pan into which I put them. It just happens to be hot at a certain point. Later, it will be cool again.

At least this is how it seems to me.

But then again, I started writing this reply before I went to lunch, and I got a haircut during my lunch break, so I'm not the same person as I was before I went to lunch.

TTM

Philosophy Forum

Different, but the same

Quick Links

My Account

able2know