A, an, etc.

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

A planet.

An atom.

We hear phrases like that all of the time in the context of science, philosophy, history, and many other contexts.

But we do not hear, "A Barack Obama". We simply hear, "Barack Obama".

Apparently there are entities which there are many of, and there are specific members of the class of those entities. There are several planets, and there is Jupiter.

Therefore, Barack Obama is a specific member of a class of entities, right? Barack Obama is a specific Homo sapiens sapiens, for example.

But wait. We never hear language corresponding to a specific member of the class atoms, a specific member of the class subatomic particles, etc.

It seems that we have some hidden assumptions here. The first is that every example of some entities, such as atoms, is the same. The second is that there are specific entities, such as Barack Obama, that there is only one of.

Is any of this true? Could it be that every atom is so unique that each one is a specific atom? Meanwhile, could it be that there are other Barack Obamas? Could it be that we could create several Barack Obamas in a lab? Then, instead of only hearing "Barack Obama" we would hear "a Barack Obama"?

Maybe philosophers, scientists and others have already observed that the universe is made of countless unique entities and nobody ever told me. I thought of all of it on my own as I worked at my job tonight. As far as I know, it is my own original set of insights in metaphysics and the philosophy of science--honestly.

 

[JustMeSee]

If my limited understanding is correct, the transporters on the original star trek break people and stuff down and reconstitute it. ..A fast mover.

Or was it that it was more like a copier, where the original was destroyed and made exactly the same somewhere else. Kind of like in that magician movie some years ago.

My biggest issue is the brain. I Don't know is memories and self can really be copied or moved.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

If my limited understanding is correct, the transporters on the original star trek break people and stuff down and reconstitute it. ..A fast mover.

Or was it that it was more like a copier, where the original was destroyed and made exactly the same somewhere else. Kind of like in that magician movie some years ago.

My biggest issue is the brain. I Don't know is memories and self can really be copied or moved.

Are there any two entities that are identical?

Think about what that question means. If you answer "No" then you are saying that every subatomic particle is different.

 

[Elendur]

Your two listed assumptions are faulty. From the perspective we put it, every thing is specific.

It's just that we most often don't bother with separating them.

Example:
Barack Obama is an american.
I've both regarded him as a specific individual and described him with a nonspecific label.

Thanks to the power of definitions we can get arbitrarily specific.

Example:
Pick an atom from this atom cloud.
Name it atom A.
Now we have an atom which we call atom A.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are there any two entities that are identical?

According to scientists: identical twins.

 

[juvenissun]

A planet.

An atom.

We hear phrases like that all of the time in the context of science, philosophy, history, and many other contexts.

But we do not hear, "A Barack Obama". We simply hear, "Barack Obama".

Apparently there are entities which there are many of, and there are specific members of the class of those entities. There are several planets, and there is Jupiter.

Therefore, Barack Obama is a specific member of a class of entities, right? Barack Obama is a specific Homo sapiens sapiens, for example.

But wait. We never hear language corresponding to a specific member of the class atoms, a specific member of the class subatomic particles, etc.

It seems that we have some hidden assumptions here. The first is that every example of some entities, such as atoms, is the same. The second is that there are specific entities, such as Barack Obama, that there is only one of.

Is any of this true? Could it be that every atom is so unique that each one is a specific atom? Meanwhile, could it be that there are other Barack Obamas? Could it be that we could create several Barack Obamas in a lab? Then, instead of only hearing "Barack Obama" we would hear "a Barack Obama"?

Maybe philosophers, scientists and others have already observed that the universe is made of countless unique entities and nobody ever told me. I thought of all of it on my own as I worked at my job tonight. As far as I know, it is my own original set of insights in metaphysics and the philosophy of science--honestly.

It all depends on whether we can tell things apart.

Some people can not tell Obama from Lincoln. If so, they can treat them as the same. So we might have "a" Lincoln then, and "a" Lincoln now.

 

[VirOptimus]

According to scientists: identical twins.

No, that is not what "scientists" say.

Frankly, I dont even belive that you belive that.

 

[mzungu]

According to scientists: identical twins.

Identical twins have similar but not identical fingerprints even though their DNA is identical.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But wait. We never hear language corresponding to a specific member of the class atoms, a specific member of the class subatomic particles, etc.

It seems that we have some hidden assumptions here. The first is that every example of some entities, such as atoms, is the same. The second is that there are specific entities, such as Barack Obama, that there is only one of.

That's not an assumption. It's an observation.

Is any of this true? Could it be that every atom is so unique that each one is a specific atom?

I don't see how it could.
Try to describe 2 Oxygen atoms for example while explaining how they differ from eachother.

If you can't do it, then there's the answer to your question.

Meanwhile, could it be that there are other Barack Obamas? Could it be that we could create several Barack Obamas in a lab? Then, instead of only hearing "Barack Obama" we would hear "a Barack Obama"?

If you would clone him a couple of times and would be able to do it in such a way that nobody, not even barack himself, could tell the difference... then yes.
Then it wold be perfectly fine to speak about "a barack obama" or "all barack obamas".

Maybe philosophers, scientists and others have already observed that the universe is made of countless unique entities and nobody ever told me. I thought of all of it on my own as I worked at my job tonight. As far as I know, it is my own original set of insights in metaphysics and the philosophy of science--honestly.

It's fun to think about, but it doesn't make much sense in reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, that is not what "scientists" say.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Let's try "monozygotic twins."

 

[VirOptimus]

Oh, I'm sorry.

Let's try "monozygotic twins."

I think you are misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding. But please, post your source(s).

 

[essentialsaltes]

Are there any two entities that are identical?

As far as we know, all electrons have identical properties. Similarly for other elementary particles.


(And if you catch a physicist late at night after a few beers, she may tell you about Wheeler's idea that electrons really are identical, that there is only one in the whole universe, and it zips back and forth through time.)

 

[juvenissun]

Are there any two entities that are identical?

It depends on the resolution of observation.

Could one electron be different from another electron? I say it could, depends on what are you looking at on the electrons. For example, direction of spinning?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Your two listed assumptions are faulty. From the perspective we put it, every thing is specific.

It's just that we most often don't bother with separating them.

Example:
Barack Obama is an american.
I've both regarded him as a specific individual and described him with a nonspecific label.

Thanks to the power of definitions we can get arbitrarily specific.

Example:
Pick an atom from this atom cloud.
Name it atom A.
Now we have an atom which we call atom A.

None of this addresses the fact that one never hears "A Barack Obama" but does hear, say, "A planet".

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

If you would clone him a couple of times and would be able to do it in such a way that nobody, not even barack himself, could tell the difference... then yes.
Then it wold be perfectly fine to speak about "a barack obama" or "all barack obamas"...

That makes it sound like:

1.) Relativism. Everything is just the perception of the observer.
2.) Anthropocentrism. The perceptions of humans dictate what is reality.

It's fun to think about, but it doesn't make much sense in reality.

It needs to be thought about.

I have always subconsciously assumed that things like subatomic particles are each the same. The overwhelming majority of people likely have that assumption.

Our language suggests that the things that we do not assume there is more than one of, such as Barack Obama, are unique arrangements/combinations of the same essential material.

If these beliefs are false then that means that we live in a universe made of countless unique entities. That seems almost unfathomable.

 

[Elendur]

None of this addresses the fact that one never hears "A Barack Obama" but does hear, say, "A planet".

I'll try to be more explicit then:

"A" or "an" is referring to an unspecified object (including persons). If you've named the object, there's no need for the "a" or "an".

 

[Bungle_Bear]

A planet.

An atom.

We hear phrases like that all of the time in the context of science, philosophy, history, and many other contexts.

But we do not hear, "A Barack Obama". We simply hear, "Barack Obama".

Apparently there are entities which there are many of, and there are specific members of the class of those entities. There are several planets, and there is Jupiter.

Therefore, Barack Obama is a specific member of a class of entities, right? Barack Obama is a specific Homo sapiens sapiens, for example.

But wait. We never hear language corresponding to a specific member of the class atoms, a specific member of the class subatomic particles, etc.

It seems that we have some hidden assumptions here. The first is that every example of some entities, such as atoms, is the same. The second is that there are specific entities, such as Barack Obama, that there is only one of.

Is any of this true? Could it be that every atom is so unique that each one is a specific atom? Meanwhile, could it be that there are other Barack Obamas? Could it be that we could create several Barack Obamas in a lab? Then, instead of only hearing "Barack Obama" we would hear "a Barack Obama"?

Maybe philosophers, scientists and others have already observed that the universe is made of countless unique entities and nobody ever told me. I thought of all of it on my own as I worked at my job tonight. As far as I know, it is my own original set of insights in metaphysics and the philosophy of science--honestly.

The only assumption here is that every language uses articles with nouns. And that's an incorrect assumption. Many languages do not have articles (Hindi, Japanese and Russian are good examples). So your idea, whilst interesting, falls down very quickly.

A quick example: in Japanese 惑星があります can mean both "there is a planet" and "there are planets". You need context to decide which is the correct meaning.

 

[JustMeSee]

According to scientists: identical twins.

Identical twins is a misnomer. The have visible differences. I give you four hands for the effort.

 

[JustMeSee]

I imagine there have been many males by that name throughout time all different.

An exactly copy typically would lose its exactness very quickly.

 

[granpa]

A planet.

An atom.

We hear phrases like that all of the time in the context of science, philosophy, history, and many other contexts.

But we do not hear, "A Barack Obama". We simply hear, "Barack Obama".

Apparently there are entities which there are many of, and there are specific members of the class of those entities. There are several planets, and there is Jupiter.

Therefore, Barack Obama is a specific member of a class of entities, right? Barack Obama is a specific Homo sapiens sapiens, for example.

But wait. We never hear language corresponding to a specific member of the class atoms, a specific member of the class subatomic particles, etc.

It seems that we have some hidden assumptions here. The first is that every example of some entities, such as atoms, is the same. The second is that there are specific entities, such as Barack Obama, that there is only one of.

Is any of this true? Could it be that every atom is so unique that each one is a specific atom? Meanwhile, could it be that there are other Barack Obamas? Could it be that we could create several Barack Obamas in a lab? Then, instead of only hearing "Barack Obama" we would hear "a Barack Obama"?

Maybe philosophers, scientists and others have already observed that the universe is made of countless unique entities and nobody ever told me. I thought of all of it on my own as I worked at my job tonight. As far as I know, it is my own original set of insights in metaphysics and the philosophy of science--honestly.

and an event is a specific instance of a given class of verb