3-2 What does discernibility mean?
One way to define the concept of discernibility, which is to be distinct from other objects, is
understood in terms of the differences between the properties of an object and those of other objects.
Accordingly, the definition of discernibility involves the properties of an object and its differences with
the properties of other objects. For example, two objects are discernible from each other iff when they
are not identical they do not share their properties.
According to the PII, if two objects share all their properties then they are identical. If the PII is
true, then its contrapositive is also true, that is if two objects are not identical, then they do not share all
their properties, that is they are discernible. That is how traditionally discernibility was described.
However, as we have seen in French’s counterexample to the PII, two bosons that are not numerically
identical might share all their properties. Since the PII is not true its contrapositive, sentence (5) below,
is not true either. Therefore, it is not the case that every two objects that are identical are discernible.
(5)
On the other hand, if there is at least one property that two objects do not share, the objects are
not identical. This is the contrapositive of LL which is a logical truth, and its logical formulation is as
follows:
(6)
In other words, for every two objects if there is at least one property which is not in common between
the objects we can say the objects are discernible.
Accordingly, since all objects are individual, individuality means that all objects are
self-identical and for every pair of them if there is at least one property that is not in common, they are
not identical. A...
... middle of paper ...
...hat have properties like mass are not objects anymore.
Similar to the case of all boson's, except photons.
5. If there is a universe with only one Boson, that Boson would be an object since it does not share all its properties with another object. But, in the same universe with two bosons, bosons are not objects anymore.
6. If something is penetrable and co-exists with something else it would not be an object, but if it
accidentally does not co-exist with something else, it is an object.
3
7. According to 5 and 6 object-hood is context dependent that seems counter-intuitive.
Works Cited
Black, Max (1952). The identity of indiscernibles. Mind 61 (242):153-164.
Décio Krause(2009), The mathematics of non-individuality.
Tugendhat, Ernst (1982). Traditional and Analytical Philosophy: Lectures on the Philosophy of
Language. Cambridge University Press.
between the two authors, they share similarities towards the message they try to send out.
to one another, while others can be opposite/different, just like in the book To Kill
"Perception - Definition of Perception by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia." Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary. Web. 08 Feb. 2011. .
Sameness is the quality or state of being alike or of not changing. Everyone is same in Jonas’s community. Sameness has both advantages and disadvantages, but more advantages in The Giver by Lois Lowry.
2) Whatever is moved is moved by another [for nothing can be or should be moved itself (pg. 128)]
‘A fixed attribute is that which can at no point be separated and removed without fatal destruction resulting—as weight is to stones, heat to fire, liquidity to water, tangibility to all bodies, and intangibility to void’.
...istinct asymmetry here because it is not possible for one third party to agree with both mine and Sam's conclusion.
If one accepts these ideas, one has a useful tool to help oneself be objective about a certain thing. If we remember these distinctions, then we can identify and separate from each other those qualities which exist in the object itself, those judgments we make about those qualities, and those ideas we have independent of an object. Separating primary qualities from secondary qualities allows us to more accurately perceive reality.
actuality in the same respect as the first object is in potentiality. For example, something
In an effort to classify what sort of things properties are several possibilities have been introduced. The favorite theory of D.M. Armstrong was that of properties as universals. Armstrong beliefs that universals are an ontologically basic component of the world. He compares them to the letters of the alphabet, rather than the words. Universals are thus a basic component of things. Armstrong also made several other claims about universals. First universals must be sparse. There isn’t a universal corresponding to every set. There are only as many universals as there are genuine similarities. Every universal must also be instantiated by something, either in the past, present or future.
together. While this may seem like a paradox, it is proved time and again throughout the
Then, he characterizes this rule as something that always and necessarily follows. Also, this rule must make the
...t the object is an actual constituent of that proposition. The proposition contains merely the constituents of those words contained in the denoting phrase.
As well, another principle would be similarity and how it is identified as the tendency to perceive things that look similar as being part of the same group. For example, as early as grade school people are trained to be able to see similar things that go together, such as objects being the
Law of Similarity: the law of similarity suggests that similar things tend to appear grouped together.