Indiscernability of identicals (if I'm remembering right... too lazy to look up...). As in, if two things are identical, they share all of the same properties, and there aren't two things there is one thing. Identicality of indiscernables is that if two things share all of the same properties, then they're identical. This second one is less obvious, and doesn't seem necessary.
I think that in stipulating that two things are identical, you either mean in some respect, but distinct in others, or you are stipulating that there aren't two things at all. That's just what identical means. Two things can be completely indistinguishable, indistinct, but not be identical if you reject the IOD, but stipulating that they're identical does necessitate that they share all of the same properties, and are actually the same thing. — Wosret
I don't think so, I realize that the point is that because they're identical, that it is impossible to rationally preference one over the other, because what could be said of one, can be said of the other as well -- but I'm saying, and you're agreeing that this obviously isn't so. One can actually come up with a bunch of things that would be true of one and not the other. Say the wind is coming in from the left, and the pig smells that one but not the one on the right (not to mention the other reasons I've given). — Wosret
The difficulty here is that you haven't explained how the ass can choose a) over b) or b) over a) — Michael
Yes, your summary is accurate, as far as I recall.Indiscernability of identicals (if I'm remembering right... too lazy to look up...). As in, if two things are identical, they share all of the same properties, and there aren't two things there is one thing. Identicality of indiscernables is that if two things share all of the same properties, then they're identical. This second one is less obvious, and doesn't seem necessary. — Wosret
The indiscernibility of identicals
For any x and y, if x is identical to y, then x and y have all the same properties.
∀ x ∀ y [ x = y → ∀ P ( P x ↔ P y ) ]
The identity of indiscernibles
For any x and y, if x and y have all the same properties, then x is identical to y.
∀ x ∀ y [ ∀ P ( P x ↔ P y ) → x = y ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles
— wiki
But, I believe the point is that the hay bales are not numerically identical, even if they are identical in all of their relevant properties (indeed, even if they are identical in all of their properties, period).I think that in stipulating that two things are identical, you either mean in some respect, but distinct in others, or you are stipulating that there aren't two things at all. That's just what identical means. Two things can be completely indistinguishable, indistinct, but not be identical if you reject the IOD, but stipulating that they're identical does necessitate that they share all of the same properties, and are actually the same thing.
This is no longer a problem. In the paradox the ass has NO reason to make a choice.
As I've explained the ass HAS a reason to make a choice.
Either the decision is logical or it is random. It can't be logical as you've already explained and I agree. However it can be random but with the added qualification that there IS a reason to being random. — TheMadFool
So the ass has to make a random choice. — TheMadFool
And the problem is that random choices might not actually be possible (e.g. hard determinism) or that random choices aren't actually choices but things that happen to us — Michael
Everything about the essence of the problem has just been left behind — Efram
That is to say, rather than solving the problem of how the donkey decides between two identical piles of grass, you've changed the problem into, how does the donkey take a course of action that keeps it alive. The original problem goes unsolved — Efram
Sometimes in such thought experiments or problems it is difficult to know which aspects we can safely abstract away, and which we can sensibly retain. Like those problems concerning how to figure out which light switch controls which light bulb in a room we can only view once. The solutions often concern feeling light bulbs to see if they're warm and such.You are getting caught up on the details of thought experiment itself. You are like the person who hears the trolley problem and tries to find some reason to stop the trolley without killing anyone, when the real point is asking whether it is better to kill one person or let five people die. — Chany
how do we choose between two equal choices when we have no reason to choose one over the other? — Chany
You are getting caught up on the details of thought experiment itself. You are like the person who hears the trolley problem and tries to find some reason to stop the trolley without killing anyone, when the real point is asking whether it is better to kill one person or let five people die. — Chany
And I've explained that this is an illusion of choice. There's no way reason and logic can solve this conundrum. It has to be a random selection. — TheMadFool
Wouldn't saving everybody be the best solution? — TheMadFool
Or it could be that the ass cannot make a decision or its mind has a built-in deterministic way of dealing with situations like this. — Chany
The fact is that we do make random choices in our lives. We never get stuck like the ass. I'm sure if you were ever hungry you wouldn't get paralyzed between two boxes of cereals. Fact shows that we are capable of making random choices. — TheMadFool
It does not follow from this fact alone that we have observed an actual situation of two equally compelling choices that Buridan's Ass describes. — Chany
How can I ensure the case to pick each can is perfectly symmetrical and equally appealing in your mind and remains that way as you go through the decision making process? — Chany
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.