3 ms·

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 transp

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.

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.