Re: A real world example

JOG wrote:
> It is important to see that "Me now" is a completely
> different entity to "Me over my whole lifetime". The
> temporal issue is irrelevant, all that matters is to
> recognise they are just different entites. I know this is
> initially seems an obtuse philosophical point, but it has
> _real_ consequences for how to model those entities.
>
> Something must remain constant to compare entities -
> something must identify them. If nothing remains constant
> the things being compared, by liebniz equality, are
> different things full stop. This is what mathematical
> logic is grounded in, we can't just avoid it. You seem to
> be saying it is possible that "every attribute of
> something has changed, yet it is still the same
> thing". Surely that's logical nonsense!

It's not necessarily nonsense. It's the "endurance" concept of diachronic identity. There are certainly philosophers who stand by that view. However, I too feel that it leaves a lot to be desired. Personally I find the "perdurance" notion far more appealing. In that notion time is yet-another-attribute and the indentity of a thing is the totality of it's past, present, and future self. This view of the Universe as a static whole is appealing in many ways. The mystery it leaves us with is to explain our /perception/ of change. Oh and the asymmetric temporal distribution of entropy.

• Keith -- Fraud 6