Identity of indiscernibles (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 6 months ago by lemat_87@lemmygrad.ml to c/materialism@lemmygrad.ml

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I mean you have this right at front even in the wiki article, it is methaphysics. Now it fits with the wider atempts of using the quantum physics to deny materialism, but i can't see how any of it is conclusive, no matter how would it appear just now. Even disregarding the practicality and reality of those ideas, it's still just moving the borders of knowledge, or as i would call it "idealism in the cracks".

And history clearly proven that we might not be able to see into those cracks currently, and while it's not guaranteed we will be in forseeable future or maybe not ever, but it still does not mean there is something fundamentally unconcievable and incompatible with entirety of human knowledge there either.

Or maybe even simpler, they are splitting the hairs and counting the angels.

[-] lemat_87@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 months ago

I mean you have this right at front even in the wiki article, it is methaphysics.

I wanted to make sure, since I have no philosophical education. Philosophy affects foundations of mathematics, which quite interests me, and I noticed that materialism may serve as guideline even in such topic, which is probably as abstract as possible.

Now it fits with the wider atempts of using the quantum physics to deny materialism

I noticed it too, and I have an impression that this is an old scheme: «if I cannot understand something, then it must be a god's work» or some methaphisical flavour of it.

this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024

4 points (100.0% liked)

Materialism and Atheism

82 readers

1 users here now

Community for discussion for all aspects of materialism: materialist philosophy, theory, history, dialectical materialism, critiques of philosophical idealism, religion and so on.

Community is not only about philosophy. Memes, dunks, rants and shitposting are welcomed, as long as they are broadly relevant.

MATERIALISM:

Philosophical trend which emphasise the material world (the world outside of consciousness) as the foundation and determinant of thinking, especially in relation to the question of the origin of knowledge. For materialism, thoughts are “reflections” of matter, outside of Mind, which existed before and independently of thought.

IDEALISM:

Idealism is a thought process (ex. rationalism) of how the material world adheres to ideas. Idealists follow a certain ideal concept (ex. faith) and understand everything from its adherence to that concept.

Idealism can also be understood as the practice of understanding abstractions through other abstractions; where an abstraction is something that does not necessarily have basis nor relation to reality, but only exists in relation to other abstractions. The primary concern for the idealist is to create concepts that adequately explain (and change of viewpoint of) the world as we know it.

Idealism may reject the existence of the external world all altogether (the world beyond thought, beyond sensation) or assert that while a world beyond sensation may exist, it is unknowable. These trends are known as Subjective Idealism. On the other hand, idealism may accept the objectivity of nature but regard the material as the expression of ideal forces such as the Will of God, the absolute Idea, etc whose nature is accessible to the Mind directly. These trends are known as Objective Idealism.

Some basic reading:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml