Can two objects ever be exactly the same?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bob Sinclair
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether two objects can ever be exactly the same, with the original poster pondering the uniqueness of all things. They question if identical manufactured items could truly be the same given their different histories and contexts. The conversation touches on philosophical concepts like the Principle of the Indiscernibles and Schrödinger's cat, exploring the implications of observation on identity. A key point raised is the necessity of defining terms like "object" and "identical" to advance the discussion scientifically. Ultimately, the thread highlights the complexity of identity in both physics and philosophy.
Bob Sinclair
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi! I will say outright that I know almost nothing about physics or the sciences. However, I'm pretty inquisitive and try to watch docos and read. This often leads me to questions, which are probably silly to you guys, but I'd still like to know what the answers are, if any.

So, I was lying on the grass and looking at the sky and I thought, wow, everything in the world is completely different. No two things are the same. Then I thought, am I sure? Can two objects ever be exactly the same? You could come close if you tried. I mean you could get pin-point manufactured, say, bricks. They're both exactly the same in size, shape, colour. But even then, they would have been built at different times, maybe by different machines. Their appearance is identical, but their history is not.

So is there any circumstance or evidence that two objects can be EXACTLY the same. I don't know what I mean by object really either. But some way that two… things… could occupy the exact same space and history? Even so, could they even be observed, as wouldn't merely viewing them make them different?

Anyhow, it's late. I don't know if any of that made sense. In the scheme of things, I guess it doesn't really matter if two things can be perfectly identical, but thought you guys might know. If you do have any ideas, could you please try and reply in layman terms? I am smart, but I'm not quantum physics smart haha… :p
 
Physics news on Phys.org
But what in all likelihood, are the actual chances of there being another me in a parrallel universe somewhere? I mean it'd be possible sure, but come on, surely the chances are very slim...

To add a thought onto my original question... so what about Schroedinger's cat? Technically while in the box, the cat is not either alive or dead, but both simultaneously alive AND dead. So the two outcomes are identical, as they share the same history, provided no one observes them. Does this count towards two things being identical? Or have they merged into one "thing" and no longer count as two separate entitites? (Sorry if I haven't explained that well).
 
If there is one "parallel universe" then why not two and then a multiplicity that may be uncountable?

Open at my side is Karl Poppers Quantum Physics and the Schism in Physics of his Postscript to Logic of Scientific Discovery, in which he agonizes over the interpretations of QM, more of which have been conceived since his writing. His stuff is hard, tedious, but enlightening!
 
I can't see how this conversation is going to go anywhere - at least not anywhere scientific - unless one defines one's terms. What is an object? What does it mean to be identical?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
I can't see how this conversation is going to go anywhere - at least not anywhere scientific - unless one defines one's terms. What is an object? What does it mean to be identical?

Vanadium 50 hits the nail on the head... as usual.
This thread is closed because it's heading in a direction that is off-topic for this forum. Some of the links and references will be of interest to readers who wish to follow up on their own, but PF is not the place for this discussion.

Bob Sinclair said:
To add a thought onto my original question... so what about Schroedinger's cat? Technically while in the box, the cat is not either alive or dead, but both simultaneously alive AND dead.
That's a common misunderstanding, and illustrates the pitfalls of discussing the philosophical implications of QM without first understanding QM. Schrodinger proposed the thought experiment not because he or anyone else seriously thought that the cat was both dead and alive, but to point out a flaw in the then-current understanding of QM - it didn't say whether the cat was alive or dead. This flaw has been largely corrected during the 75+ years since then.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
14K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
1K