2

Is a dog from the present considered to be the same thing as the same dog 1 sec in the future? What are the distinctions philosophers tend to make when we refer to the same thing at a different time. What are the various views on this and has there been a consensus on how we should treat them? How do we assess a truth position when the elements being judged exist in different times?

Mauro ALLEGRANZA
  • 36,790
  • 3
  • 36
  • 80
puffofsmoke
  • 1
  • 1
  • 11

1 Answers1

2

tl;dr- Whether or not something is the same from one moment to the next depends on the model framework; either model is valid. As for the continuity of one's identity, that's an emotional concern not determinable by logic alone.

To quote this answer:

Summary: Equality is context-subjective, sameness isn't so much.

Things are equal in some sense when they're interchangeable in that sense.

Things are the same when they're equal in all ways that we care to identify.

So, something is the same from-moment-to-moment if we don't care to identify the moment in which it exists as a meaningful distinction. I'm trying to stress that "in all ways we care to identify" part, as the choice of ways that we care to identify is subjective.

I mean, we can take two views here:

  1. Things exist at a moment in time, such that things that exist at different moments in time are distinguishable.

  2. Things can exist across moments in time, such that when we point to a thing at different moments in time, we're merely pointing at the same thing in different ways.

Both are consistent and therefore valid.

Analogy: Is 1+1=2 or 1+1=10?

Say that someone asks if

  • 1+1=2 in decimal (Base-10); or

  • 1+1=10 in binary (Base-2).

What'd be the answer to that question?

They're both valid! We can say that 1+1 is either 2 or 10, depending on that frame; so long as we're consistent, it's all good.

Likewise, if we ask if a dog is

  • the same in a second from now; or

  • different in a second from now;

both'd be valid. We can say that it's either, depending on our frame, as long as we're consistent.

Of course, we can force errors. For example:

  1. It'd be wrong to say that 1+1=10 in decimal.

  2. It'd be wrong to say that a dog is the same in a second from now in a frame in which we say that things exist at precise points in time.

Those would be examples of consistency errors.

Related: Do people die every moment?

I think people sometimes wonder about the continuity of their personal identity; are people the same consciousness from-moment-to-moment?

From a scientific perspective, it's equally valid to say that you are or aren't, so long as the meaning of those descriptions is understood consistently. This is, there's no scientific reason that you have to see it either way.

The big question is how someone self-identifies. This is, do you care to perceive yourself as the same thing from-moment-to-moment; or, do you care to distinguish your identity across time in some way? Unfortunately, logic isn't going to tell you how you should feel; that's up to you.

That said, you can appreciate both models. This is, you can see your[-temporal-]self as dying at each moment while seeing your[-timeless-]self as existing across time. Then you can be upset about one while happy about the other. I mean, there's no reason that your emotions have to be rooted in a single perspective.

Community
  • 1
Nat
  • 1,995
  • 1
  • 11
  • 23
  • Tried to split a larger answer up into two posts on different questions, to avoid doing a super-long answer again. =P – Nat Sep 26 '19 at 21:39
  • A set of criteria is a set of criteria. Equal according to a set of criteria we want to consider or the same according to all the criteria we want to consider. This is a distinction without a difference. Both terms are entirely context-specific. When we use them both in the same context, we have to tell them apart, and it is not always 'the same' that is the more specific one. –  Sep 26 '19 at 23:46
  • @jobermark While everything's ultimately subjective, "equal" is more subjective than "the same". Examples: (1) In languages like Java/C#, we acknowledge that different objects (i.e., those stored as distinct entities in a computer's memory) can still be .Equal() despite not being the same. (2) People can be equal under the law without being the same under the law. (3) In physics, two forces can be equal without being the same force. (4) In math, two expressions can be equal without being the same, e.g. 1+1 and 2. – Nat Sep 26 '19 at 23:51
  • When there are no rules, you can invent or discern whatever rules you want. But this is not a rule. Most people would consider two copies of the same picture the same but not equal. Things can 'be the same' by belonging to the same class and will not be considered equal. Two forces can also be the same force in different degrees and thus not equal. –  Sep 26 '19 at 23:54
  • @jobermark Most people might find the phrase "equal pictures" to be strange, but if you asked someone to assess equality, they'd likely find the same picture to be equal with itself despite the unusualness of the question. (Unless you're arguing that people would assert that the same picture is unequal to itself?) – Nat Sep 26 '19 at 23:55
  • You answered as I was typing. Deal with the same force but in different degrees. There simply is no such rule as you have stated here. And I said two copies of the same picture. They would not find the two images in different locations in space to be equal, but they would find the two images to be the same as images. –  Sep 26 '19 at 23:56
  • @jobermark What do you mean by "no such rule"? This is a common understanding in computer science, math, logic, physics, etc.. – Nat Sep 26 '19 at 23:58
  • I just gave you as many counterexamples as you gave me examples. There is no such rule, It depends entirely on context. –  Sep 26 '19 at 23:59
  • @jobermark I dunno what to tell ya. I mean, in physics, we talk about equal but opposite reactions, etc.; this is basic terminology. Likewise, in computer programming, we talk about different objects being equal. It's as I described it; if you haven't encountered this before, I dunno what to say. – Nat Sep 27 '19 at 00:04
  • Right and an equal but opposite reaction can be of two forces that are not the same. I can turn mechanical input into electrical output. You can stop saying the same thing over and over and take me seriously, or you can just tell me you are unwilling to listen. –  Sep 27 '19 at 00:04
  • @jobermark Correct; equal-but-opposite forces are necessarily not the same. – Nat Sep 27 '19 at 00:06
  • But two different quantities of gravity are the same force. –  Sep 27 '19 at 00:07
  • @jobermark No, they're different forces, distinguished as differing vectors, e.g. $F_1$ vs. $F_2$. They're caused by the same mechanism (or else they're consequences of the same fiction, depending on your frame), but they're not the same force. – Nat Sep 27 '19 at 00:08
  • No, they are the same force, they are both gravity and not electricity. You know exactly what I meant and you are playing games. I am out of here, you are a jerk 'The same' can be about categories, in a way that 'equal' is unlikely to be. In that case equal is the more specific equivalence class. So depending on context either one of these can be the more specific one. –  Sep 27 '19 at 00:09
  • @jobermark That's kind of the problem with the loose way you're using language -- it's too imprecise to maintain consistency. Whatever the case, it's strange for someone to take offense in a comment thread like this... if I might be somewhat direct here, are you okay? – Nat Sep 27 '19 at 00:13
  • No I am not alright and I should not have been here, sorry. –  Sep 27 '19 at 23:14
  • @jobermark It's all good! In any case, sorry to pry; I get that stuff can be hard sometimes, so just wanted to try to say Hey. – Nat Sep 27 '19 at 23:39
  • great answer. This argument somewhat resembles the maayavaada and advaitavaada in vedanta – vidyarthi Sep 29 '19 at 18:24