Yes, of course for A=A is mean anything it has to be a basically vacuous statement.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:46 pmWell, I agree, because you've actually said what I mean. A quark has to have the attributes science assigns to a quark, or it would be something else.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 7:04 pmAll these things are somewhat theoretical, and I agree that to work each "quark" or whatever, if it is exists at all has to have the same properties of every other quark, excpet for ONE very important thing which makes everything in the universe unique...RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:04 pm
One of the issues I have always had with atomic and subatomic physics is that all the particles are essentially identical, and totally interchangeable. An electron is an electron is an electron and except for possible relationships (energy levels, position, etc.) they are indistinguishable.
If they are real entities wouldn't they have be different in some way? The only way electrons (or protons, or neutrons, or any other sub-atomic particle) must be different is position. Two cannot be in the same place at the same time.
As science describes them, they have no intrinsic different attributes. Any two electrons, protons, neutrons, positrons, quarks, or mesons would be the same, wouldn't they?
As you astutely observe - since no electron can occupy the same space/time as any other then it is their position spatially and temporally that make each one unique and that A is not A.
This goes back to assert my initial reaction to the thread topic.
So our difference about, "A is A," is really a difference in what we mean by, "A." What I mean by, "A," is only a symbol for a kind of thing, like a quark, or proton. For me, "A," represents a phrase, "a particular kind of existent," so "A is A," means, "a particular kind of existent is that particular kind of existent."
Such as a cat is a cat. Meh.
It really ought to be, "an A is an A and not any other kind of thing." "A is A," means a quark is a quark and not a positron (or anything else). It does not mean any quark is identical to any other quark.No. Except for the universe, there is no thing that is not also something else. An apple is also a fruit. The only thing that occupies a set of itself is the universe. A quark is also a sub atomic particle.If that IS the case, then why does the expression include TWO As? I can't think of any use for this.
And it is true for anything that exists. A dog is a dog, (and not a cat), and a river is a river, (and not a lake), and apple is an apple, (and not an egg). In each case there is only one dog, river, or lake referred to."A" would be quite enough. A is an example of other things called A too. Saying A=A still does not make sense.
That's what I mean by, "A is A."
I don't want to speak for you, but you seem to view, "A," in, "A is A," as representing two different existents. Usually that case would be represented, "A is B," meaning the two different things, were actually the same thing (which as you pointed out cannot be). If what you mean by, "A is A," is not what I mean, of course you will not agree. In which case there cannot really be an argument because we'd be talking about two different things.