4 ms·

The ship is not the same as what happens to it. The river is not just the water that's streaming in the channel. You are not just what happens to you. State is

The ship is not the same as what happens to it. The river is not just the water that's streaming in the channel. You are not just what happens to you. State is not identity, if it were, the past would always change and there would be no history. State is not identity, in programming and in real life.

unclebucknasty 11y ago
Not sure what that means. If a ship is burned to ashes, then is it still a ship? If those ashes are then mixed with other substances to form construction material from which a home is built, is it still a ship? If wood from a forest is never assembled into a ship, is it still a ship? State and identity seem intrinsically linked.
- mkehrt 11y ago
  Relatedly: http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/10/03/140815154/dissolve-my-nobel-prize-fast-a-true-story http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/10/03/140815154/di...
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    The gold did not cease to exist, any more than did the ashes from the burned ship. But, the Nobel medals did cease to exist, as did the ship. The gold could be refashioned into more medals. But, they would not be the same medals. The gold could also be fashioned into a necklace, or two necklaces. If this were not so, then the statement "state and identity are not the same" would be meaningless, because there would be no need for the word "identity" in any case.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  >State and identity seem intrinsically linked. They aren't. Two dollar bills are equal, but not identical; they are only coincidentally related. Things that are identical are always equal but things that are equal are not always identical. To compare identity, a thing must be compared to itself in the real world, thus is the ship still the same ship it was before, even if all the parts have been replaced. The answer is open to debate, both sides have valid arguments.
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    Not sure we're using the same context, but I still believe that the state of a thing absolutely contributes to the identity of a thing. If you dissolve the ink from a dollar bill such that it's just a piece of paper, would you still say it's a dollar bill? I would say no. Its state has changed and, thus, has its identity (i.e. how we identify it). But, if you say, "yes, it's still a dollar bill, albeit in a deteriorated condition", then you have to answer the question, "when did it first become a dollar bill?" In so doing, you must acknowledge that it underwent a state change at some point which changed its identity in the first place. Identity is something we impute, based in no small part on the state of a thing. Lastly, I think your mention of equality vs identity is flipped. They are only equal by one coincidental (arbitrary) measure: monetary value. But, you could just as soon measure the physical dimensions or weight. But, while they are not necessarily equal, they are identical: that is, we identify them each as dollar bills.
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      > If you dissolve the ink from a dollar bill such that it's just a piece of paper, would you still say it's a dollar bill? I would say no. Its state has changed and, thus, has its identity (i.e. how we identify it). That's not what he means by identity; it's still the same piece of paper and thus it's identity has not changed, even though it's state has. That it's a dollar bill has nothing to do with its identity because he's not using the term in that way; he's literally using a programmers definitions of those words. The Mississippi river is still the Mississippi regardless of the fact that the water it's completely different water each day. Identity is independent from state. Two dollar bills have equal state but independent identity. You are still you even though the cells in your body are not the same cells you were born with. Your identity is the pattern of electricity that make up your personality and consciousness, not the cells you are built from. The cells are state, not identity.
      - unclebucknasty 11y ago
        Consciousness is more ethereal and harder to quantify, so I would probably carve that out. But, looking at the more quantifiable world, I don't see how state is completely independent of identity. Can there be some variance in state, while the identity remains unchanged? Sure. But, it appears to be a question of degree, in both quantity and quality. A fundamental question is, can a thing ever cease to exist? If so, then can a change in state precipitate its demise? Or said another way, can it cease to exist, yet retain its state? So, I would say that there are state changes which can alter or completely destroy identity. But, if you say that a thing cannot cease to exist, then you are effectively saying that there is not such a thing as identity in the first place. EDIT: Wait, maybe I am getting your point. Are you saying that a thing may cease to exist, but its identity doesn't? That, if the Mississippi is filled with cement such that it is no longer a river, we would still use its identity as a pointer to something which was, but no longer exists?
- nickbauman 11y ago
  Two words for you: Abraham Lincoln. The long answer: Consider, if the ship (which is called, for example, the Medusa) burns, we still can talk about The Medusa as a ship using its identity. People will know what we're talking about even though the ship has been destroyed. The ship is still a ship even though its been turned to ashes; its identity is not the same as its corporeal form.

unclebucknasty 11y ago

Not sure what that means. If a ship is burned to ashes, then is it still a ship? If those ashes are then mixed with other substances to form construction material from which a home is built, is it still a ship? If wood from a forest is never assembled into a ship, is it still a ship? State and identity seem intrinsically linked.

mkehrt 11y ago
Relatedly: http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/10/03/140815154/dissolve-my-nobel-prize-fast-a-true-story http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/10/03/140815154/di...
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  The gold did not cease to exist, any more than did the ashes from the burned ship. But, the Nobel medals did cease to exist, as did the ship. The gold could be refashioned into more medals. But, they would not be the same medals. The gold could also be fashioned into a necklace, or two necklaces. If this were not so, then the statement "state and identity are not the same" would be meaningless, because there would be no need for the word "identity" in any case.
gnaritas 11y ago
>State and identity seem intrinsically linked. They aren't. Two dollar bills are equal, but not identical; they are only coincidentally related. Things that are identical are always equal but things that are equal are not always identical. To compare identity, a thing must be compared to itself in the real world, thus is the ship still the same ship it was before, even if all the parts have been replaced. The answer is open to debate, both sides have valid arguments.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  Not sure we're using the same context, but I still believe that the state of a thing absolutely contributes to the identity of a thing. If you dissolve the ink from a dollar bill such that it's just a piece of paper, would you still say it's a dollar bill? I would say no. Its state has changed and, thus, has its identity (i.e. how we identify it). But, if you say, "yes, it's still a dollar bill, albeit in a deteriorated condition", then you have to answer the question, "when did it first become a dollar bill?" In so doing, you must acknowledge that it underwent a state change at some point which changed its identity in the first place. Identity is something we impute, based in no small part on the state of a thing. Lastly, I think your mention of equality vs identity is flipped. They are only equal by one coincidental (arbitrary) measure: monetary value. But, you could just as soon measure the physical dimensions or weight. But, while they are not necessarily equal, they are identical: that is, we identify them each as dollar bills.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > If you dissolve the ink from a dollar bill such that it's just a piece of paper, would you still say it's a dollar bill? I would say no. Its state has changed and, thus, has its identity (i.e. how we identify it). That's not what he means by identity; it's still the same piece of paper and thus it's identity has not changed, even though it's state has. That it's a dollar bill has nothing to do with its identity because he's not using the term in that way; he's literally using a programmers definitions of those words. The Mississippi river is still the Mississippi regardless of the fact that the water it's completely different water each day. Identity is independent from state. Two dollar bills have equal state but independent identity. You are still you even though the cells in your body are not the same cells you were born with. Your identity is the pattern of electricity that make up your personality and consciousness, not the cells you are built from. The cells are state, not identity.
    - unclebucknasty 11y ago
      Consciousness is more ethereal and harder to quantify, so I would probably carve that out. But, looking at the more quantifiable world, I don't see how state is completely independent of identity. Can there be some variance in state, while the identity remains unchanged? Sure. But, it appears to be a question of degree, in both quantity and quality. A fundamental question is, can a thing ever cease to exist? If so, then can a change in state precipitate its demise? Or said another way, can it cease to exist, yet retain its state? So, I would say that there are state changes which can alter or completely destroy identity. But, if you say that a thing cannot cease to exist, then you are effectively saying that there is not such a thing as identity in the first place. EDIT: Wait, maybe I am getting your point. Are you saying that a thing may cease to exist, but its identity doesn't? That, if the Mississippi is filled with cement such that it is no longer a river, we would still use its identity as a pointer to something which was, but no longer exists?
nickbauman 11y ago
Two words for you: Abraham Lincoln. The long answer: Consider, if the ship (which is called, for example, the Medusa) burns, we still can talk about The Medusa as a ship using its identity. People will know what we're talking about even though the ship has been destroyed. The ship is still a ship even though its been turned to ashes; its identity is not the same as its corporeal form.