Re: More on identifiers
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 05:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ea1afdb1-747a-4d0f-a730-e0bf8059c2a4_at_k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 5, 7:08 pm, Roy Hann <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat> wrote:
> robu..._at_gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 1:25 pm, "Walter Mitty" <wami..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> Consider two electrons. They both have the same mass, and they have the
> >> same charge. They might have opposite spins. But the minute we add a third
> >> electron, the spin of two of them is going to be identical. It seems that,
> >> on the surface at least, electrons do not have enough properties to carry
> >> identity.
>
> > If objects are really not distinguishable then why someone would want
> > to artificially identify them? Wouldnąt be better to record just their
> > quantity?
>
> Amen to that, brother.
Certainly. However it can mean you get to artificially label a type of thing instead. The fact remains that the flat RM makes artificial labels inevitable in certain cases.
My post suggests the rather startling idea that there is a way for the RM to /always/ avoid artificial labels. Received on Fri Jun 05 2009 - 14:03:49 CEST