From: Louis Newstrom (louisnews@comcast.net)
Date: Fri Jun 14 2002 - 11:54:52 MDT
From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin@tsoft.com>
> I tend to agree with you. The key point, to me, is that for some
> reason someone has referred to "two objects". Why did they do
> that? How did they do that? Evidently there is some distinction
> between them; all we need to do is ascertain what.
It's position. If more than one position is occupied simultaneously, then
you have more than one object.
If you include time, then it get's more difficult, to ask if an object at
one time is the same object at another time. This requires tracking a
contiguous position from one space-time to another space-time. But it's
still doable. Since two objects cannot occupy the same space, you can
always follow a line of position from one time to another time, and not lose
track of which object you are following.
I think the weirdness comes from computer simulation. In a computer, things
are created and destroyed all the time (unlike the real world). The
real-world user can't tell. So the user calls a duplicate "the same
object". Now people are debating what "the same" means, since different
objects are called the "same".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:47 MST