Each apple is so much different from the other that it is hard to imagine how we can talk about (number) two apples. And that is a miracle we do almost every moment of our life – without noticing what we are doing. — Damir Ibrisimovic

It seems that we need to reinvent our theories to enable unique phenomena occurring in our picture of the universe. — Damir Ibrisimovic

I hope you won't be offended if I offer my retort, in good natured jest, in the form of a small dialogue.

Person A: I have observed two apples. I was quite shocked! They were so different! And I must admit to you that I have thus concluded that we must rethink anew all of our scientific and philosophical theories hitherto!
Person B: Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to first lay some doubt upon your observation?
Person A: Nonsense! I must post this to the internet at once!
Person B: Good, well then perhaps you should set to work reinventing the whole theoretical apparatus which enables internet, wifi, computing, satellites and microchips first.
***
Descartes (waking up from night sweats): Surely I must quit leaving the oven on while I fall asleep. It leads to the most awful hallucinations.

Each apple is so much different from the other that it is hard to imagine how we can talk about (number) two apples. — Damir Ibrisimovic

It's not really. If you had an orchard growing pears, apples, and oranges, and you had to group the output by kind of fruit, that wouldn't be difficult. The fact that we're able to abstract the kind 'apple' and recognise members of that group or species, is basic to thought and language (and farming!)

And indeed the universe 'is ticking' with repeatable causes and effects (even if it's a rather odd turn of phrase.) You plant apple seeds, and you'll get an apple tree - 10 times out of 10. That doesn't stop each apple from being unique in some respects but again the fact that they're unique doesn't have a lot of significance. Every snowflake is unique, but beyond the 'gee whiz' factor when you first hear that fact, I'm struggling to see why it's important.

“Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. — Betrand Russell

Mmm, singularity is the madness of reason, its vertigo and its dirty little secret.

Person A: Nonsense! I must post this to the internet at once! — John Doe

I'll take it as "good natured jest".

Good, well then perhaps you should set to work reinventing the whole theoretical apparatus which enables internet, wifi, computing, satellites and microchips first. — John Doe

It is not only me, there are others working on it.

For example;

The monotonic logics are being replaced by non-monotonic logic mostly as a practice.

I have also criticised the concept of "information" in IT. In short, Norbert Wiener renamed Shannon's information entropy into information and changed signs in Shannon's formulas. Consequently, we have the whole IT industry talking about information instead of information entropy and redundance. And Shannon was looking for information entropy to calculate how much redundancy is needed to preserve a message.

In AT (Artificial Intelligence) we already have modest ways to handle "impossible" phenomena. (Reference: Complex Adaptive System (theory))

Re Descartes: Have you noticed that Descartes observed .5 sec delay - the delay Benjamin Libet measured centuries later. (Soldier fighting instinct to run away and then changing it to go to the battle.)

Enjoy the day,

Your plumping for similar objects in a group being different. Some of us plump for the similarity of differing objects in a group. You find two green apples to have vast differences. I'd say they are alike (even if one can, if one must, tell one from the other). You're probably the type that thinks the each human is completely unique and dissimilar. Like a snowflake. Humbug, I say. People are all alike. Apples (with apples) and Homo sapiens share so much in common. Sure, we have -- like apples -- differences which become apparent on close examination. But it is our great similarity that enables us to understand each other.

It's not really. If you had an orchard growing pears, apples, and oranges, and you had to group the output by kind of fruit, that wouldn't be difficult. — Wayfarer

And that is a miracle we do almost every moment of our life – without noticing what we are doing. — Damir Ibrisimovic

The counting is simple, regardless of unnoticed "miracle". We simply "forget" differences

And indeed the universe 'is ticking' with repeatable causes and effects (even if it's a rather odd turn of phrase.) — Wayfarer

If it were repeatable causes and effects, then the planted apple would be exactly the same as the parent tree. While we are pretty sure about the approximate effect - we are still having an infinity of differences.

Name me one effect that is 100% the same as a previous effect. Apple seeds are not very convincing.

Enjoy the day,

Mmm, singularity is the madness of reason, its vertigo and its dirty little secret. — StreetlightX

It is rather an upside-down opposite to mathematical singularity. Mathematical objects (including singularity) are rather derived from natural phenomena.

Enjoy the day,

You're probably the type that thinks the each human is completely unique and dissimilar. — Bitter Crank

On the contrary. I stress that although there is an infinite set of differences - we tend to disregard them and establish similarities. However, the finite set of similarities cannot disguise the fact that there is an infinity of differences.

As it is now - we take the finite set of similarities and proclaim them as repeatable stets of causes and effects. As if they are not unique.

Enjoy the day,

As yet our cognitive processes cannot handle the uniqueness of naturally occurring phenomena (1/∞). — Damir Ibrisimovic

Yes, only God, being an infinite intelligence, can handle that. Probably S/He/It cannot handle abstraction, generality, similarity and even identity, having no need for it.

But it is our great similarity that enables us to understand each other. — Bitter Crank

Prototyping is also dangerous. Think about racial and similar biases manifesting (mostly nonconsciously) in our dealings with the "same" people. Such, mostly nonconscious, biases aslso spread misunderstanding.

I think that we need a balanced approach to other people. Without uniqueness, we will never overcome our little (but terrible) biases.

Enjoy the day,

Yes, only God, being an infinite intelligence, can handle that. — Janus

I would not involve God as yet. As long we keep God outside of picture - and try to resolve our problems ourselves - we will prosper. With reliance on God to solve our problems - we stagnate.

Enjoy the day,

OK, but this has nothing to do with what we were discussing, which was the difference between finite, and an infinite, mind.

Enjoy the day, — Damir Ibrisimovic

Is that an order?

OK, but this has nothing to do with what we were discussing, which was the difference between finite, and an infinite, mind. — Janus

I wasn't under impression that we were discussing an "infinite mind". Unique (impossible) phenomena can be managed indirectly as infinite sets are managed in math.

Is that an order? — Janus

You can take it as an "order".

Hearty,

I wasn't under impression that we were discussing an "infinite mind". Unique (impossible) phenomena can be managed indirectly as infinite sets are managed in math. — Damir Ibrisimovic

Possibly, but my point was just that a finite mind, which relies on abstraction, cannot see things as absolute singularities. So, I was saying that only an infinite mind could do that; and I wasn't making any claim about there actually being an infinite mind, because I think that is also unknowable to a finite mind.

You can take it as an "order". — Damir Ibrisimovic

OK, I take that as a (hearty) suggestion. :wink:

Possibly, but my point was just that a finite mind, which relies on abstraction, cannot see things as absolute singularities. — Janus

Tentatively agree.

I would also suggest that we can experience the infinity. (Example: Aldous Haxly - The Door of Perception. Some types of meditations can also tackle the infinity of perception.)

But this edges toward art - rather than science.

Hearty,

But if you ignore the differences and look towards their commonality you can discover their origin, from a tree which they both come from and then trace its antecedents.
does spot the difference achieve the same results?

However, the finite set of similarities cannot disguise the fact that there is an infinity of differences. — Damir Ibrisimovic

It all then comes back to the point of view that might make it matter.

Two apples are the same if they both meet our purpose of having a bit of fruit to eat.

At the supermarket, those two apples might be different if one is bruised and small. We would have good reason to be more particular. But if we have been starved for days, then one apple becomes as good as the other.

So judgements are contextual. They embody a purpose, a point of view, that makes sense of the world ... to us.

Now we can then imagine the more objective view of the world. That is what we routinely do in philosophy or science. We start talking about the disinterested observer, the view from nowhere, that reduces reality to some mindless set of "facts".

From that point of view, it is common to say that every difference matters as every difference is a potential fact - a bit of information, a difference that makes a difference. So there is no good reason to ignore any potential difference and accept any two things as the same. There will always be some possible view of reality in which the difference might happen to matter.

The good scientist or metaphysician wants to leave that question open. Differences become differences in themselves, not differences that exist, or don't exist, from some particular point of view.

As you know, that view of reality works great until it doesn't. And once we strike quantum physics, it really doesn't. It breaks down fundamentally. The world is no longer infinitely divisible. It has a finite definite information content. Only so much difference can be actual. And also every difference is contextual. It takes an "observer" to produce a difference in a definite counterfactual fashion.

But oh well. It takes more that actual facts about nature to shake people out of a formal classical conception of reality.

Anyway, there is your answer. There are differences that matter and then differences that don't ... given some point of view.

And then even from our most objective description of nature - the quantum one - there turns out to be a physical limit on difference. Infinite variety is not possible in actuality. Nor is escaping the essential contextuality of any notion of physically objective differentiation.

It is a good question because it reveals the shortcomings of the standard classical viewpoint in metaphysics, or even mathematics.

does spot the difference achieve the same results? — JupiterJess

Nothing guarantees that tomorrow you will not need a difference and find a better abstraction...

Hearty,

Now we can then imagine the more objective view of the world. — apokrisis

"More objective" does not really express the uniqueness. For example:

--- Short History of Australian Landscape Painting ---

Older paintings were exactly the same as English landscape paintings. Over time Australian Landscape paintings were getting closer and closer to actual Australian landscapes.
-------

Without an effort to notice the differences, painters here would still paint English-like landscapes.
----

The world is no longer infinitely divisible. It has a finite definite information content. Only so much difference can be actual. — apokrisis

There is an infinity of actual differences. Even physicists accept that wavicles (WAVe/partICLEs) are unique with infinite sets of differences.

But oh well. It takes more that actual facts about nature to shake people out of a formal classical conception of reality. — apokrisis

I would add: Including quantum physics.

Hearty,

I would agree that we can certainly feel as though we are experiencing infinity. That we really are experiencing infinity, whatever that could even mean, is not something that could ever be demonstrated, though.

... is not something that could ever be demonstrated, — Janus

Some types of meditation can be taught and then independently verified. Otherwise, I agree that presently we do not even have a clue how to do that...

Hearty,

Even physicists accept that wavicles (WAVe/partICLEs) are unique with infinite sets of differences. — Damir Ibrisimovic

Wavicles are one of those happy classical concepts - a convenient way to gloss over the issues.

Quantum theory in fact relies on the indistinguishability, or identicality, of particles to explain their "weird" statistics - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles

So until an observational point of view is actually imposed, a pair of entangled particles are in the identical state described by their wavefunction.

When it comes to Leibniz's principle of the identity of indiscernibles, reality turns out to be more interesting. :)

Quantum theory in fact relies on the indistinguishability, or identicality, of particles to explain their "weird" statistics - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles — apokrisis

The two statistical, entangled wavicles have at least differences in how they relate to all other wavicles in the universe. This eludes some physicists too. (I wouldn't always trust Wikipedia...)

I wouldn't always trust Wikipedia... — Damir Ibrisimovic

I thought it would do you for a start. There are plenty of more detailed journal articles you could browse.

Dear all,

The Tale of Two Apples is not receiving more comments. I'll assume that the topic can be closed. Please check if you would like to post your final comment.

Hearty, :cool:

I am eagerly awaiting the fall apple harvest. I have nothing more to say about apples.