Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 07:36:22 -0500
From: ropella-ge-glen <ropella-AT-lvs-emh.lvs.loral.com>
Subject: Re: human body transformation


> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim-AT-panix.com>
> 
> Gotta disagree with you here. I'm not sure what you mean by 
> "non-constant" for one thing. And I'm not talking on the quantum level; 
> identity has been used on the macroscopic level, even by quantum 
> physicists. Equivalence is well-defined within mathematics, and within 
> specified tolerances in taxonomic theory; all rotifera of a given species 
> for example are equivalent, with the same positioning of the same number 
> of cells.
> 
> Alan

What I was implying is that "identity" is defined as uniqueness.  If I 
refer to X as *identical* to Y, then X *is* Y.  I.e. not only are X and
Y equivalent; but, there are NO differences between them because they
are one and the same thing.

This defn of identity cannot be carried over into the realm of personality
and the way identity is used in that context because, even though we clip
our fingernails, cut our hair, and lose a bunch of skin cells from one
day to the next, we keep the same identity.  This use of the word is more
like your use of the word (re: rotifera).

What I'd responded to originally was your analysis of the re-creation of
the yo-yo.  Yo-yo Y, after being created, is not "identical" to yo-yo
X because of the difference in it's physical state and location.  But,
yo-yo Y can be said to have the same characteristics of yo-yo X, which
if we use the word "identity" in the latter sense of above, then we 
can say that the transporter preserved the yo-yo's identity.

My comment about equivalence referred to which equivalence *class* you
happen to be referring to at the time you make the equivalence claim.
If I say, "That yo-yo is equivalent to that stone."  You must judge
the truth of the statement based on context.  If the equivalence class
I'm talking about merely lumps all 10 gram semi-spherical objects into
one group, then my statement is probably true.  But if the equivalence
class lumps all childrens' toys with strings attached, then clearly,
the statement is not true.

> > "Politics?"  Do you mean "ethics?"

Now, I took your mention of "politics" to mean that yo-yo Y is effectively,
the same as yo-yo X; but, it's just in a different place in space with
a few very minor differences in some particles.

This would more properly be referred to as "agency," which I normally
use only in the context of ethics.

-- 
glen e. ropella  &&  ropella-AT-lvs-emh.lvs.loral.com


     --- from list technology-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------