3 ms·

First time I have read anything about haecceity. The first thing that pops into my head regarding the two iron spheres is that they must differ in their positio

First time I have read anything about haecceity. The first thing that pops into my head regarding the two iron spheres is that they must differ in their position in the universe, so they differ in something other than their haecceity. If there is no way for two identical real objects to occupy the same space then maybe this concept never applies to real objects...?

brudgers 12y ago
The problem for a Midevalist is that location is an accidental property...transposing their locations does not make one the other and vice versa. Location as the basis for haecceity is numerical individuation of the sort Scotus rejects.
- mjburgess 12y ago
  Well it's an "accidental" property for pretty much everyone today - very few people anything that would make spacial location a property of the thing. You'd have to say that if you translated the entire universe in one direction some property of everything would change - but everything would behave identically, all measurements would be identical, all relationships between objects identical, etc. A spacial property is at least as weird as haecceity.
  - brudgers 12y ago
    Programmers often make spatial location a property of an when using object oriented programming. As you observe, doing so makes translating the state of the entire universe more complex than it might otherwise be.
- anentropic 12y ago
  Hmm... but in the real world there's no way to transpose their locations without moving continuously through intermediate positions, so at the end of the transpositions the two objects will have a different history of location and their identity can be observed throughout and thus preserved. If they could be transposed instantaneously they'd be indistinguishable. Although they would still have a different 'history of locations' property. Or are we saying the same thing? that there's no need for haecceity in the real world as there are always real properties that could be used to distinguish objects?
  - brudgers 12y ago
    The real world, so far as I am aware, does not consist entirely of two iron spheres. Moving the goalposts does not help clarify the reasoning nor refute the point about haecceity. That a person cannot tell two things apart is also accidental for the mediaeval philosopher. God can. Omniscience gets us the Locational history. Of course this means the universe contains three things: two spheres and God. That would be a given for any public opinions expressed by Scotus or his contemporaries. The obvious move to defeat Haecceity is to postulate a universe with two Gods. Alas, the medieval philosophy logically precludes this: Two omnipotentencies is a contradiction and the Council of Nicea dogmaticcally solved that a millennium before Scotus's time. If that's what you're saying then yes we are saying the same thing.
  - pfortuny 12y ago
    You are assuming there is "location" in a two-sphere Universe: there is no such thing because those spheres are all the Universe there is and their only "position" is "not where the other is". But absent any observer (which is one of the main tenets of Medieval Philosophy: reality does not depend on observers) they are anyway two things and not one. They did not think of "position" as something but as a pure "reference" in the sense of "being relative to". Space as an existent continuum is a very modern thing.
- pfortuny 12y ago
  Also location is essentially relative to the other things in the Universe, it is then not an intrinsic property of the thing and certainly has nothing to do with its "being this thing" and "not other".
SigmundA 12y ago
This is the first thing I thought too, their position relative to the observer is a property of the object, it seems obvious. This applies to programming as well, in most OO languages two instances of a class with identical properties are still different due to their locations in memory. Most of these language have a distinction between value equal and reference equal. Also in databases you have the issue as well. Relational purist tend want natural keys for a item, but the reality is most database make artificial keys such that two items may have the same properties and are yet distinct due to the artificial key. For instance what is the natural key of a person? Even their DNA sequence may not be unique in the case of twins, or you may have incomplete information, either way you need to give them an artificial key. Much of seems to come down to the observer. In the case of the two spheres, two where observed and given a mental haecceitas instantly. If I examine the identical iron spheres then close my eyes and they are moved into opposite positions, then observe them again I will not be able to determine which is which or if they have changed. Computers are the same way they are typically recording facts and modelling things from the real world, imperfect models based on whats observed. What may be two objects may infact be one, a dup, etc..

brudgers 12y ago

The problem for a Midevalist is that location is an accidental property...transposing their locations does not make one the other and vice versa. Location as the basis for haecceity is numerical individuation of the sort Scotus rejects.

mjburgess 12y ago
Well it's an "accidental" property for pretty much everyone today - very few people anything that would make spacial location a property of the thing. You'd have to say that if you translated the entire universe in one direction some property of everything would change - but everything would behave identically, all measurements would be identical, all relationships between objects identical, etc. A spacial property is at least as weird as haecceity.
- brudgers 12y ago
  Programmers often make spatial location a property of an when using object oriented programming. As you observe, doing so makes translating the state of the entire universe more complex than it might otherwise be.
anentropic 12y ago
Hmm... but in the real world there's no way to transpose their locations without moving continuously through intermediate positions, so at the end of the transpositions the two objects will have a different history of location and their identity can be observed throughout and thus preserved. If they could be transposed instantaneously they'd be indistinguishable. Although they would still have a different 'history of locations' property. Or are we saying the same thing? that there's no need for haecceity in the real world as there are always real properties that could be used to distinguish objects?
- brudgers 12y ago
  The real world, so far as I am aware, does not consist entirely of two iron spheres. Moving the goalposts does not help clarify the reasoning nor refute the point about haecceity. That a person cannot tell two things apart is also accidental for the mediaeval philosopher. God can. Omniscience gets us the Locational history. Of course this means the universe contains three things: two spheres and God. That would be a given for any public opinions expressed by Scotus or his contemporaries. The obvious move to defeat Haecceity is to postulate a universe with two Gods. Alas, the medieval philosophy logically precludes this: Two omnipotentencies is a contradiction and the Council of Nicea dogmaticcally solved that a millennium before Scotus's time. If that's what you're saying then yes we are saying the same thing.
- pfortuny 12y ago
  You are assuming there is "location" in a two-sphere Universe: there is no such thing because those spheres are all the Universe there is and their only "position" is "not where the other is". But absent any observer (which is one of the main tenets of Medieval Philosophy: reality does not depend on observers) they are anyway two things and not one. They did not think of "position" as something but as a pure "reference" in the sense of "being relative to". Space as an existent continuum is a very modern thing.
pfortuny 12y ago
Also location is essentially relative to the other things in the Universe, it is then not an intrinsic property of the thing and certainly has nothing to do with its "being this thing" and "not other".

SigmundA 12y ago

This is the first thing I thought too, their position relative to the observer is a property of the object, it seems obvious. This applies to programming as well, in most OO languages two instances of a class with identical properties are still different due to their locations in memory. Most of these language have a distinction between value equal and reference equal. Also in databases you have the issue as well. Relational purist tend want natural keys for a item, but the reality is most database make artificial keys such that two items may have the same properties and are yet distinct due to the artificial key. For instance what is the natural key of a person? Even their DNA sequence may not be unique in the case of twins, or you may have incomplete information, either way you need to give them an artificial key. Much of seems to come down to the observer. In the case of the two spheres, two where observed and given a mental haecceitas instantly. If I examine the identical iron spheres then close my eyes and they are moved into opposite positions, then observe them again I will not be able to determine which is which or if they have changed. Computers are the same way they are typically recording facts and modelling things from the real world, imperfect models based on whats observed. What may be two objects may infact be one, a dup, etc..