I am considering the idea of «Identity of indiscernibles», https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles

If I am correct, from it we can deduce that there can be no two exactly same things. Somewhere I heard that it is an important law of materialism.

However, this law was questioned by Max Black. Following Wikipedia article about him, he presented objection by:

«means of a hypothetical scenario in which he conceives two distinct spheres having exactly the same properties, thereby contradicting Leibniz' second principle in his formulation of "The Identity of Indiscernibles". By virtue of there being two objects, albeit with identical properties, the existence of two objects, even in a void, denies their identicality.»

Since these spheres are conceived in void, this sounds pretty idealistic for me and not be able to seen in the material world, which is the only reality in materialistic view.

Is my deduction correct?

For mathematically minded, Wayne Blizard made formal axiomatization of multisets https://doi.org/10.1305%2Fndjfl%2F1093634995 where existence of multiple indistinguishable objects is allowed (like a list with multiple same entries). This seems to violate the law of Identity of indiscernibles to me. Note that the Zermelo-Frenkel (ZF) set theory follows Identity of indiscernibles, what is seen e.g. when the union of {x,y} and {x} gives {x,y}. In ZF theory, set can contain only distinguishable objects. The result of rejecting the Identity of indiscernibles in the Blizard's work is that his axioms are very complicated when compared with neat ZF axiomatization, what of course translates to lengthy, cumbersome and unpractical derivation of proofs. I have a feeling that this «innocent» touch of idealism spoils pretty everything in mathematics, not to mention other fields.

Joram van Klaveren is still a right-winger, by the way.

Penrose is a physicist that has worked on the great mysteries like cosmology and consciousness. For Penrose, he reluctantly calls himself a materialist because he admits he doesn't know what matter really is even tho he ostensibly is a materialist in practice.

What do you make of this?

In light of the recent "religion" decree on lemmy, how does Penrose's reluctance interact with notions of religon? If there is a non-physical world that interacts with the physical world, then is the non-physical world somehow immaterial? Or could it be material? Can the material be subdivided into "alternative materials" with seperate functions, similar to how structural forces give rise to attitudes, and attitudes give direction to maintain or change structures? Sometimes ideas become so entrenched that they become structural and affect matter beyond what happens in the brain. Similarly, material forces that are not present still affect us (and then those affects re affect us as we contextualize things), for example the actions of our ancestors or the past itself. Furthermore, with any amount of predictive ability, the looming, foreseen future affects the present even though it has not materialized.

Oftentimes we may be off put by a seperation between material and spiritual or non physical, but what if they are still basically the same thing and the distinction is a red herring.

Have a meme for a good start.

Anyway, i would like some opinions on few basic things for this community: what to write in a sidebar, some rules, maybe some reading list, also if someone have idea on a banner and everything else needed to be said and done, since i'm not a philosopher and i never made any instance or mod job anywhere.