9 ms·

>State and identity seem intrinsically linked. They aren't. Two dollar bills are equal, but not identical; they are only coincidentally related. Things that ar

>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?
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      > But, looking at the more quantifiable world, I don't see how state is completely independent of identity. I gave you an example, two dollar bills have equal state but completely different identity. The identity obviously has nothing at all to do with state. It's clear you're not a programmer or you wouldn't be having the issues you're having understanding this distinction. Programming 101, state and identity are different things. > A fundamental question is, can a thing ever cease to exist? That depends on how you define thing, and that question has nothing to do with the issue at hand, state vs identity. > If so, then can a change in state precipitate its demise? Or said another way, can it cease to exist, yet retain its state? That's a bad example that mixes in unrelated issues, flip it around. Can it maintain its state yet lose its identity, and the answer is yes it can, by being copied. A copy of a thing has all the same state as the original thing but has a different identity. If I clone you, the clone is not you, you and the clone have distinct identities but equal state. Therefore identity and state are clearly distinct, QED. > So, I would say that there are state changes which can alter or completely destroy identity. True, but irrelevant and merely coincidental. > 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. No I'm not. Get off the cease to exist point, it's confusing you; look at the copy angle, copies make it clear that state and identity are not the same thing and are completely independent of each other. Yes, it's possible to think of state changes that affect identity by killing a thing, but that's coincidental and tangential, it doesn't mean state and identity are the same thing, only that they both rely on existence of a thing. Things can and do have equal state and distinct identity, money is a prime example; state and identity are distinct, accept it.

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?
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > But, looking at the more quantifiable world, I don't see how state is completely independent of identity. I gave you an example, two dollar bills have equal state but completely different identity. The identity obviously has nothing at all to do with state. It's clear you're not a programmer or you wouldn't be having the issues you're having understanding this distinction. Programming 101, state and identity are different things. > A fundamental question is, can a thing ever cease to exist? That depends on how you define thing, and that question has nothing to do with the issue at hand, state vs identity. > If so, then can a change in state precipitate its demise? Or said another way, can it cease to exist, yet retain its state? That's a bad example that mixes in unrelated issues, flip it around. Can it maintain its state yet lose its identity, and the answer is yes it can, by being copied. A copy of a thing has all the same state as the original thing but has a different identity. If I clone you, the clone is not you, you and the clone have distinct identities but equal state. Therefore identity and state are clearly distinct, QED. > So, I would say that there are state changes which can alter or completely destroy identity. True, but irrelevant and merely coincidental. > 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. No I'm not. Get off the cease to exist point, it's confusing you; look at the copy angle, copies make it clear that state and identity are not the same thing and are completely independent of each other. Yes, it's possible to think of state changes that affect identity by killing a thing, but that's coincidental and tangential, it doesn't mean state and identity are the same thing, only that they both rely on existence of a thing. Things can and do have equal state and distinct identity, money is a prime example; state and identity are distinct, accept it.