Right. Which is to say that it has no definite identity. Which is another way of calling into question its actual existence. Which in turn has a lot to do with the whole Einstein-Bohr debate. — Wayfarer
In general, history is very important. Have you heard of Richard Gregory's top-down theory of perception? — Magnus Anderson
By 'identical' I mean similar in every detail; exactly alike. — believenothing
Identicality isn't a description of appearances, it is an adopted convention that grants the inter-substitution of two or more distinguishable things in every situation. As an adopted convention, it doesn't make sense to ask whether two things really are identical.
I don't understand what two "identical ideas" look like so I can't begin to answer the question.
By not paying the attention due to the language being used, the replies here amount to nothing.
Like most of philosophy.
Do you mean that the particle has a position in a point of space like the escaped convict and the quantum wave is only an expression of our incomplete knowledge of the particle's position? This idea was refuted by experimental tests of Bell's theorem: no local hidden-variable theory can be a correct description of quantum mechanics, where the hidden variable is a single point position of a particle, for example. This doesn't rule out non-local hidden-variable theories such as Bohm's but these theories seem incompatible with special relativity because they introduce superluminal speeds. — litewave
Identity can also be (and it mostly is) established by history. So two objects can occupy the same position in space at the same time and still be identified as two different objects simply because they have different histories. — Magnus Anderson
IF the quantum wave is actually saying the particle is in more than one location at the same time then why do we need probability in the first place? Simply say that the particle is in whatever location and also in another location. — TheMadFool
If you agree then imagine four objects A, B, C, and D and that there are only 4 possible properties: round, square, red and black.
A is a red and round
B is red and square
C is red and round
D is black and square.
Using "=" to mean "identical to" we conclude that A = C but A not = B and B not = C and so on. Identicalness, in this sense, means all properties must match exactly. — TheMadFool
This is an incorrect example because of the deficiencies of the human capacity of identification. The law of identity places a thing's identity within the thing itself, (a thing is the same as itself), not in what we say about the thing. So A is not necessarily the same as C because your premise "there are only 4 possible properties" is a faulty premise. — Metaphysician Undercover
I see the quantum wave as an object whose mathematical (quantitative-structural) properties specify how it will interact with other objects. I don't mean that a quantum wave is less "real" than a point particle; it's just something that is there, although a different something than a point particle. The probabilistic character of the quantum wave is of course at the heart of interpretations of quantum mechanics. Currently I prefer the many-worlds interpretation because it doesn't seem to need more assumptions beyond the Schrodinger equation of the quantum wave, like wave "collapse". It just assumes that the quantum wave evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, with the mathematical consequence being that when the wave interacts with a many-particle object, parts of the wave that correspond to different possible values of a variable (for example, point position) stop interfering with each other and become separated into non-interacting parts of reality ("worlds").
A problem with the many-worlds interpretation is that an infinite number of possible values of a variable corresponds to an infinite number of worlds and it is not clear how to calculate frequentist probabilities when there is an infinite number of possibilities. Maybe a reconciliation of quantum mechanics with relativity theory will provide a solution to this problem, perhaps by limiting the number of possibilities to a finite number. — litewave
I only used 4 properties to simplify the issue and the number 4, in and of itself, has no bearing on the critical aspects of identicalness which is, quite obviously, based on shared properties. The only method by which we may distinguish objects is on the basis of differences in properties and the only method by which we may say two or more objects are identical is by checking if they share all properties or not. — TheMadFool
The point was to show that your approach is faulty. Identity is based in uniqueness, and this is the opposite of "shared properties". So you'll never get to the true meaning of "identical" through the assumption that "identicalness" is based in shared properties, because it's not, it's based in "identity", and identity refers to uniqueness.. — Metaphysician Undercover
what are you talking about that isn’t covered by this law? Identity is necessary for identifying - the idea of ‘identical’ is pretty much the basis of propositional logic
A=A. — Wayfarer
I still think too much knowledge can be a bad thing. — believenothing
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.