3 ms·

I don't know why you're being downvoted. By the very definition of the term identical if any two things are identical they must be the same in all respects incl

I don't know why you're being downvoted. By the very definition of the term identical if any two things are identical they must be the same in all respects including spatial and temporal location. So fundamental particles are very much not identical in this sense. Of course there are not two identical things in the universe. Because being identical they're the same thing, aren't they? It's called the identity of indiscernibles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles And one may disagree with the "unmoved mover" (let's call it an) axiom but if one takes that as given then it is plain to see that Leibniz's argument holds. And say you actually do disagree with it as an axiom then you have a bigger problem, what Umberto Eco called the most intractable problem of all, the problem that generates all other problems, namely, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

obstinate 10y ago
I don't agree that is the definition of the word identical. I think the common understanding of the word is irrespective of position in space time. If that weren't it's meaning, it would be a pretty useless word.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I think the common understanding of the word is irrespective of position in space time. Logic, science and philosophy (and Leibniz did all three) doesn't concern itself with the "common understandings of the world". In the Leibniz's example, he wanted to set first principles -- that go deeper than the "common understanding".
  - obstinate 10y ago
    If that were his definition -- that identical things are things which share every property, including location in spacetime -- then it would be begging the question. In any case, that is not what he meant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13851486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13851486
mannykannot 10y ago
I did not downvote coldtea, and I would have preferred those who did so to explain their reasoning instead, but I have offered up an argument that works equally well against your first paragraph: the existence of bosons. Eliezer Yudkowsky has made an argument against doing epistemology by intuition [1]. Famously, Henri Bergson tried to use his intuition about time to dismiss special relativity, and while he may have swayed the Nobel prize committee [2], his ideas were swept away by history. Turning now to your last paragraph, it is like saying Bernie Madoff's clients were wealthy because the arithmetic in their statements was correct. Also, one cannot validly argue against the rejection of a self-serving axiom on the grounds that doing so leaves problems unsolved. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/q1/bells_theorem_no_epr_reality/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q1/bells_theorem_no_epr_reality/ [2] http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helped-ensure-there-was-no-nobel-for-relativity http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helped...
- mannykannot 10y ago
  I posted the wrong link for reference 1 - this gets directly to the point: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ph/can_you_prove_two_particles_are_identical/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ph/can_you_prove_two_particles_are_i...

obstinate 10y ago

I don't agree that is the definition of the word identical. I think the common understanding of the word is irrespective of position in space time. If that weren't it's meaning, it would be a pretty useless word.

coldtea 10y ago
>I think the common understanding of the word is irrespective of position in space time. Logic, science and philosophy (and Leibniz did all three) doesn't concern itself with the "common understandings of the world". In the Leibniz's example, he wanted to set first principles -- that go deeper than the "common understanding".
- obstinate 10y ago
  If that were his definition -- that identical things are things which share every property, including location in spacetime -- then it would be begging the question. In any case, that is not what he meant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13851486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13851486

mannykannot 10y ago

I did not downvote coldtea, and I would have preferred those who did so to explain their reasoning instead, but I have offered up an argument that works equally well against your first paragraph: the existence of bosons. Eliezer Yudkowsky has made an argument against doing epistemology by intuition [1]. Famously, Henri Bergson tried to use his intuition about time to dismiss special relativity, and while he may have swayed the Nobel prize committee [2], his ideas were swept away by history. Turning now to your last paragraph, it is like saying Bernie Madoff's clients were wealthy because the arithmetic in their statements was correct. Also, one cannot validly argue against the rejection of a self-serving axiom on the grounds that doing so leaves problems unsolved. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/q1/bells_theorem_no_epr_reality/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q1/bells_theorem_no_epr_reality/ [2] http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helped-ensure-there-was-no-nobel-for-relativity http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helped...

mannykannot 10y ago
I posted the wrong link for reference 1 - this gets directly to the point: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ph/can_you_prove_two_particles_are_identical/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ph/can_you_prove_two_particles_are_i...