Why does it have to be the exact same time to be the same photons? Do the photons turn into other photons over time? — Marchesk
Why does it have to be the exact same time to be the same photons? Do the photons turn into other photons over time? — Marchesk
Yes, it would have to be at the same time in order to be identical. If the time was different, that would not be identical. To be identical there can be no differences. — DingoJones
So two things that are red are not actually red but rather two different colors that we just refer to as red as an approximation? — DingoJones
Does a distinction between a property and something like a category or some other trait matter at all, or is that just another approximation we use for ease of language/reference? — DingoJones
Not at the same time is numerical distinction, so it's not identical in that sense. — Terrapin Station
Which means you're not allowed to conceive of an object over time, since it's always different. — Marchesk
t's not that "you're not allowed to conceive of it." Your abstraction isn't literally the case objectively, and your abstraction/conception itself isn't identical through time. — Terrapin Station
So is it philosophically the case that composite objects don't exist? — Marchesk
There's no connection between nominalism and whether objects can be composites. Under nominalism, it's just that the parts and the object are particulars (that aren't identical through time on a nominalistic rejection of genidentity as well). — Terrapin Station
Yes, it would have to be at the same time in order to be identical. If the time was different, that would not be identical. To be identical there can be no differences. — DingoJones
So when we say that 2 is identical to 2, it doesn't matter if one two was written on a blackboard in 1972 and another on a whiteboard in 2019.
Is that because 2 is not an object? — Marchesk
They're similar. It's not that "they're not actually red." It's that "actual red" isn't just a single thing. You're basically assuming platonism a la there being singular forms that are nevertheless somehow multiply instantiated in different things. On the standard nominalistic view, that idea is incoherent, and we don't buy any real — Terrapin Station
I don’t think so, I just do not know the proper/formal terminology. I was hoping you would be able to understand what I meant. “Not actually red” in the sense that there is some difference between the two instances of red that in certain contexts (such as a discussion like this one) makes it important to recognise the distinctions that nominalism makes.
Anyway, I understand. — DingoJones
It would be because you're not a nominalist, and you maybe buy real abstracts/abstract objects, you'd probably be a platonist re ontology of mathematics, and so on. — Terrapin Station
So when we say that 2 is identical to 2, it doesn't matter if one two was written on a blackboard in 1972 and another on a whiteboard in 2019.
Is that because 2 is not an object? — Marchesk
Im not sure what 2 identical to 2 would mean. In the strict, technical way we are talking about here nothing can truly identical to anything else. — DingoJones
In a certain sense I would say so ya. Obviously, when making references informally “identical” is perfectly coherent though. — DingoJones
Wording is important here, I didnt say “equal”. — DingoJones
There are universal laws and properties in physics. How can equations apply to all instances? — Marchesk
Searle just says we know in the case of humans we know that we're conscious, so it must be tied to our biology, since we don't have any other explanation. — Marchesk
What I thought was a funny conclusion from much of these philosophies, is that neurons themselves seem to have a sort of magical quality.. If one does not bite the bullet on PANpscyhism, one bites the bullet on NEUROpsychism. In other words, the "Cartesian theater", the "hidden dualism", and the "ghost in the machine" (or whatever nifty term you want to use) gets put into the equation at SOME point. It just depends on exactly what point you want to put it in the equation. — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.