From: Steve Massey (zos@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri May 29 1998 - 08:52:40 MDT
>
>>...I suspect that most people would not include
>>the location of an object as part of its identity - they would
>>hold that the piano before and after movement was the same
>>piano; that the coin one picks up, and the coin one slips into
>>ones pocket are identical.
>
>
> IAN: If location is not an attribute of identity,
> then identity is non-local, if identity is non-
> local, then A = -A, which is to say that the
> identity of A exists equally in all locations.
>
If location is not an attribute of identity, then objects in
different locations can be identical. Identical objects in
different locations have different values of 'not-the-object',
so can not be defined by it.
Additionally, defining 'not-the-object' begs the question of
what set one is defining the 'not' operation on. If we are
talking about the set { A B C }, then not-A is { B C }. If
we are considering the latin alphabet, not-A is { B .. Z }.
Yet A retains its identity with each definition: it is the
same symbol. Indeed, the set { A B C } is a subset of the latin
alphabet.
Thus A is defined, not solely by not-A, but by not-A and the
set or universe under consideration.
Steve.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:08 MST