A, an, etc.

[quatona]

None of this addresses the fact that one never hears "A Barack Obama"

or "A Mars" or "A Jupiter",

but does hear, say, "A planet".

or "a human being" or "An American president".

It´s great you are about to grasp something very basic about language, and specifically about nouns:
There are nouns that serve the purpose of creating categories, and there are nouns that serve the purpose of individuation. In fact, it´s more complicated, in that almost every noun serves both purposes simultaneously: they distinguish and they group things, at the same time - albeit to different degrees.
Here´s a chart of nouns in increasing order of individuation:
- a physical object
- a musical instrument
- a guitar
- an electric guitar
- an Ibanez (brand)
- an RG (series)
- an RG 770 (model)
- my Ibanez RG770, whom I call "Clara".
Each of those nouns (except the last one which finally and exclusively individuates) allows to distinguish and groups simultaneously. Each of the nouns includes the following ones. Each of the nouns is included in the ones above them.

Which noun we use depends on what we want make a statement about.
Sometimes we want to talk about humans in general (including Barack Obama), sometimes we want to talk about American presidents, sometimes we want to talk about the individual Barack Obama.
Sometimes we want to talk about stars, sometimes about planets, sometimes about "Mars" specifically.

At certain points, we aren´t even able to distinguish between two objects (even though they may have individual characteristics), or we see no need whatsoever to even try to. Personally, I wouldn´t know why to give every atom an individual name, and apparently not even scientists find that possible or worthwhile at this point in time, either.

In short: How we call something depends on the purpose of our statement.

 

[quatona]

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.

Not quite, not yet (even though, upon further consideration, we may arrive at this conclusion).
So far, we are but talking about words, not about reality here.
But, of course:
1. Our choice of words is guided not only by our observation, but also by our current interest and purpose. What I have called "a table" once, I might now - that I am freezing to death - call "firewood".
2. The perception of humans dictates their use of language and their choice of words. Who else´s perception would we expect words to represent?

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

Well, what difference would it make, for any given purpose? Even if every atom (or, as you have now gone to the next level) sub-atomic particle had its indivual characteristics, I don´t see myself giving them individual names any time soon.

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.

My language just suggests what my current perspective is.

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

Why would that be unfathomable?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

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.

This doesn't address his point. Is there a phrase in Japanese which can mean both, "there is a planet" and "there is Mars"?

The answer is likely, "Of course not!"

It defeats the purpose of communication if you have words that both describe a general class of objects and an individual object in that class. The distinction is needed in order to communicate.

Imagine naming your child "A Human Being"


To the OP:

There is simply no practical reason, nor is it even possible, do individuate each atom with a specific name. This is simply a matter of practicality rather than philosophy. We can't name all the grains of sand in the world, nor is there really a reason to, even though each grain of sand is unique. Same goes for snowflakes, rain drops, etc.

If I go to the beach and pick up a grain of sand, I'll say, "Here's a grain of sand."

If you want to go to a beach and pick up a grain of sand and say, "Here's a grain of sand and its name is Bob", you can go right ahead but I'm unsure of what it accomplishes in any meaningful way.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

This doesn't address his point.

Actually it does. His contention is that certain things cannot be classified with an indefinite article (a/an). As I said, if a language does not use indefinite articles the point is not a point.

Is there a phrase in Japanese which can mean both, "there is a planet" and "there is Mars"?

The answer is likely, "Of course not!"

The OP didn't ask that. Let's use an example from the OP to help make it clearer:

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

In Japanese both are written "バラク·オバマ." You would need to add some context to make it clear you are talking about a specific Barack Obama. So, for instance, I could use a number ("一つのバラク·オバマ.") to say "1 Barack Obama."

It defeats the purpose of communication if you have words that both describe a general class of objects and an individual object in that class. The distinction is needed in order to communicate.

Incorrect. You just need a context to make it clear.

Imagine naming your child "A Human Being"

You can't do that without an indefinite article

 

[sfs]

T

There is simply no practical reason, nor is it even possible, do individuate each atom with a specific name. This is simply a matter of practicality rather than philosophy. We can't name all the grains of sand in the world, nor is there really a reason to, even though each grain of sand is unique. Same goes for snowflakes, rain drops, etc.

It's more than that for atoms, it turns out. If quantum mechanics is correct (and it sure looks to be), then individual particles, and individual atoms in the same energy state, are indistinguishable in principle, not just in practice.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Most of the replies have been confusing.

I never asked a question about linguistics.

I stated that it occurred to me that I--and everybody else, I am guessing--assume that there is only one of the entity we call Barack Obama. This is evidenced by the fact that--I do not think that saying this is going out on a limb--nobody has ever said "A Barack Obama" in the sense that "Barack Obama" is a generic category.

Why do we assume, say, that there is only one Barack Obama? I can imagine other universes having other Barack Obamas, just like I can imagine other universes having planets.

Is there something in science, theology, metaphysics, etc. that uncontroversially says that there are some entities that there are only one of?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I stated that it occurred to me that I--and everybody else, I am guessing--assume that there is only one of the entity we call Barack Obama. This is evidenced by the fact that--I do not think that saying this is going out on a limb--nobody has ever said "A Barack Obama" in the sense that "Barack Obama" is a generic category.

There is no reason why "Barack Obama" cannot be a generic category. If I refer to "John Smith" you know there are thousands of them out there, but given a context you would know which one I am talking about. Would I say "a John Smith" or just "John Smith"? I could say either - it would depend on the context.

Why do we assume, say, that there is only one Barack Obama? I can imagine other universes having other Barack Obamas, just like I can imagine other universes having planets.

You have a context for understanding what "Barack Obama" means. That does not mean there is only one Barack Obama, it simply means that you understand which entity is being referenced. If you were aware of somebody else with that name you would still be able to work out which one was being talked about within the given context.

In a similar vein, there is no reason why you could not refer to a specific atom as long as you give it a name and there is a context to make clear which atom you are talking about.

And there's the rub - are you actually wanting to know "why do we give specific names to some things but not others?"

Is there something in science, theology, metaphysics, etc. that uncontroversially says that there are some entities that there are only one of?

What do you mean by "entity"?

Going back to your OP:

Could it be that every atom is so unique that each one is a specific atom?

Even if atoms are identical, they are still specific.

Meanwhile, could it be that there are other Barack Obamas? Could it be that we could create several Barack Obamas in a lab.

Even if you did, they would all be unique and specific.

 

[quatona]

Most of the replies have been confusing.

I never asked a question about linguistics.

Well, yes, you did. You tried to ascribe a epistemological significance to it, which - as has been pointed out - is erroneous.

I stated that it occurred to me that I--and everybody else, I am guessing--assume that there is only one of the entity we call Barack Obama.

(emphasis added)
1. See? You did talk about linguistics (i.e. what we call something).
2. I am not assuming that there is only one Barack Obama. I have no idea how frequent that name is.

This is evidenced by the fact that--I do not think that saying this is going out on a limb--nobody has ever said "A Barack Obama" in the sense that "Barack Obama" is a generic category.

It is a category. It includes all persons named Barack Obama. Apparently, however, there is little to no significance to this category (probably because all those Barack Obamas have so little in common - except for that name - that nobody has any use for that category and doesn´t want to make any statement about or by virtue of this category.

Why do we assume, say, that there is only one Barack Obama?

I don´t know why you guys assume that. I don´t. However, I happen to know just about one BO, and since he is very famous for his job, I am pretty safe in assuming that everyone understands whom I am talking about when saying "Barack Obama".

I can imagine other universes having other Barack Obamas, just like I can imagine other universes having planets.

You can imagine it, but quite obviously this imagination is of little to none signficance. As soon as you have a good reason to make a meaningful statement about all those Barack Obamas in all parallel universes, you can utilize this category and call each single of them "A Barack Obama".
Our everyday language, however, is not designed to address possible parallel universes and other hypotheticals. It´s hard enough to make it work for our practical purposes (which typically don´t involve parallel universes).

But we needn´t even go to parallel universes. When I am looking for "Peter Roberts" in the phone book of my town, I will find several of them. Each of them is "a Peter Roberts", and I might find myself saying "Darn, there´s yet another Peter Roberts".

Is there something in science, theology, metaphysics, etc. that uncontroversially says that there are some entities that there are only one of?

No, but when I am looking for my old buddy Peter Roberts, I am not looking for "a Peter Roberts", but for a particular Peter Roberts, who - beyond his name - is unique in the totality of his characteristics. If you show me another Peter Roberts, I will say "this is not the Peter Roberts I am looking for; even though it´s a Peter Roberts it´s another Peter Roberts."
Things might change if you introduce to me a Peter Roberts from a parallel universe who shares all characteristics with the Peter Roberts I am talking about - so I mightn´t be able to distinguish the two of them.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Actually it does. His contention is that certain things cannot be classified with an indefinite article (a/an). As I said, if a language does not use indefinite articles the point is not a point.


The OP didn't ask that. Let's use an example from the OP to help make it clearer:

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

In Japanese both are written "バラク·オバマ." You would need to add some context to make it clear you are talking about a specific Barack Obama. So, for instance, I could use a number ("一つのバラク·オバマ.") to say "1 Barack Obama."


Incorrect. You just need a context to make it clear.


You can't do that without an indefinite article

D'oh. Thanks for clarifying. Clearly I need to improve my non-existent Japanese

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

But we needn´t even go to parallel universes. When I am looking for "Peter Roberts" in the phone book of my town, I will find several of them. Each of them is "a Peter Roberts", and I might find myself saying "Darn, there´s yet another Peter Roberts".

Who uses phone books anymore?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I think the topic firmly belongs in the Philosophy section by the way. I don't see anything to do with science in this topic.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

There is no reason why "Barack Obama" cannot be a generic category. If I refer to "John Smith" you know there are thousands of them out there, but given a context you would know which one I am talking about. Would I say "a John Smith" or just "John Smith"? I could say either - it would depend on the context.


You have a context for understanding what "Barack Obama" means. That does not mean there is only one Barack Obama, it simply means that you understand which entity is being referenced. If you were aware of somebody else with that name you would still be able to work out which one was being talked about within the given context.

In a similar vein, there is no reason why you could not refer to a specific atom as long as you give it a name and there is a context to make clear which atom you are talking about.

And there's the rub - are you actually wanting to know "why do we give specific names to some things but not others?"


What do you mean by "entity"?

Going back to your OP:


Even if atoms are identical, they are still specific.

Even if you did, they would all be unique and specific.

I am not sure how what is being said addresses the issue at hand.

Is everything, including each subatomic particle in the universe, unique--does everything have some properties that nothing else has?

Or are there things--subatomic particles, maybe--that are identical?

Things like organisms, planets, galaxies, etc. are combinations of subatomic particles, right?

Are some or all instances of combinations of subatomic particles unique? Could there be multiple instances of every known combination, even combinations like Barack Obama?

Another example: California. After 500 more years of scientific investigation will we possibly discover other instances of the combination of subatomic particles that we have named California? In another universe that is independent of other universes but has the same physical laws as the one that we have observed, has a combination of subatomic particles identical to California emerged?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Is everything, including each subatomic particle in the universe, unique--does everything have some properties that nothing else has?

It has the specific quality of existing as a separate object.

Or are there things--subatomic particles, maybe--that are identical?

Each atom/particle etc exists on its own. It matters not that it is, or is not, identical to something else.

Things like organisms, planets, galaxies, etc. are combinations of subatomic particles, right?

Are some or all instances of combinations of subatomic particles unique? Could there be multiple instances of every known combination, even combinations like Barack Obama?

Even if, somehow, another Barack Obama existed with exactly the same number and type of particles, it would still be unique. Unless you can have 2 Barack Obamas made from exactly the same, specific instances of those particles they must be unique.

So now it looks like your question should be "why do we group things together when they are all unique?"

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

It has the specific quality of existing as a separate object...

Separate does not necessarily mean having properties unlike everything else.

Each atom/particle etc exists on its own. It matters not that it is, or is not, identical to something else...

Therefore predictions are based solely on the things that all atoms/particles have in common?

How can an analysis be accurate unless every variable is accounted for?

Even if, somehow, another Barack Obama existed with exactly the same number and type of particles, it would still be unique. Unless you can have 2 Barack Obamas made from exactly the same, specific instances of those particles they must be unique...

So two Barack Obamas would be analogous to two atoms?

So now it looks like your question should be "why do we group things together when they are all unique?"

It seems to me that if everything is unique--every subatomic particle, every atom, every snowflake, every organism, every fingerprint, every planet, every galaxy--then there cannot be universal physical laws.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Separate does not necessarily mean having properties unlike everything else.

Nobody said that. There is the single property of existing as a separate object. Every other property can be the same as another object, but they are still 2 separate objects.

Therefore predictions are based solely on the things that all atoms/particles have in common?

No. They can be based on things they do not have in common.

It seems to me that if everything is unique--every subatomic particle, every atom, every snowflake, every organism, every fingerprint, every planet, every galaxy--then there cannot be universal physical laws.

Unless you can demonstrate how being a separate instance of a subatomic particle changes that particle's other characteristics this is not true.

 

[[serious]]

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.

It's more if a specific thing is being referenced. For example, we might detect a planet orbiting a distant star, and the planet might be a gas giant. It is not the nature of the word "planet" that makes the distinction, it's whether we are referring to a specific one or not.

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.

I don't follow. Take the following sentences:
"Helium is the lightest noble gas"
"The proton of a hydrogen atom is the only particle in it's nucleus."

Neither would take an indefinite article in this usage

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.

Proper nouns are in general assumed to be singular, but it isn't absolute. For example, "I'm posting this on a Sunday" or "I knew a John Smith in College"

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"?

Barack Obama is a rare enough name that there is probably no one else in the US with that specific name. However, other names may be more general. George Bush, for example, could refer to any of 450 people in the US with that name. President George Bush would refer to either of 2 people with that title and name.

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.

There actually is a principle (or collection of principles) about the specificity of a particle. For example, look at the Pauli Exclusion principle. two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously.

In laymans terms, that means each particle must be able to be distinctly described. They must either be in different places, have different spins, exist there in a different time, or have different energy levels. If something forces more than one particle into the same space at the same time and they cannot can't jump to a higher energy level (the speed of light caps how high energy levels can go) they will cease to actually be particles. Black holes are an example of this.

 

[Chesterton]

Thread reminds me of the Mitch Hedberg joke: I like rice. Rice is great if you're hungry and you want 2000 of something.