Same, similar, or different?

Not to go totally off-topic here, but I wanted to start this new thread based on what was being said over in the music section:

servantes said:It’s pretty wild how everything complex—from living creatures down to basic matter—is totally unique. There isn't a single person, planet, or sun in this entire universe that's an exact copy of another...

But in physics, every single elementary particle is considered identical to any other.

So, honestly, are there actually two identical things created by nature? Like, two perfectly identical leaves, or two absolutely identical eggs? It feels like the answer is no.

But when we talk about those "elementary particles" that make up everything, we just assume they're all the same. So where does all that variety actually come from?

If I'm following servantes correctly, he thinks it comes from "complexity." Basically, these identical, simple little subatomic particles somehow line up, and that specific arrangement creates a one-of-a-kind object in our world every single time.

But here's the thing—if we can't find two identical natural objects anywhere around us, why do we act like the tiny stuff we can barely see is perfectly identical?

I guess it's mostly just a way of doing things: if we can't spot a difference between two things, we just call them equal.

Okay, so we "call" them that, but why would we actually believe they're identical if we've never even seen two truly identical things in person? 🤷

So, is "perfect equality" just a byproduct of our limited vision? Like, things look identical just because we can't see the tiny differences?

Maybe "perfect equality" is just something that exists in math, while in the real world, anything "equal" is really just some kind of similarity (assuming similar means being both the same and different at once) rather than true equality?

👍Jiddu Krishnamurti says they just don't exist.
The guru type and The Krishnamurti Foundation look pretty much the same to me😁

I see you used my line from that music thread to kick off this new topic.
Since you did, I feel a bit obligated to weigh in on the question you've posed.

The truth is, based on our daily experience, we take everything our senses pick up—and our conceptual understanding of those things (which is how I applied it to music)—and we label them as unique and singular. But they’re just symbols (one, pi, an object...).
Sciences dealing with complex systems (biology, anthropology, geology...) are "middle-ground" sciences. Religious folks would call God a "middle-ground god."
Modern physics deals with stuff far beyond our direct experience (either infinitely small or infinitely large), and when it comes to its conclusions, we can either believe them or not. The fact is, it produces highly verifiable results that work in practice, even while chasing a "theory of everything." Yet, at the same time, using its own tool of mathematics (as part of logic), it can't even calculate the movement of three bodies in space or conceptually explain what a 6-dimensional World actually looks like.
Quantum mechanics, and partly OTR, introduce a whole new type of logic regarding what we still consider "matter" (the real question is: what even is it?). It has zero connection to our lived experience. A particle—which I previously said was identical to any other—is defined in all sorts of ways (wave, field, particle, wave-particle duality). It introduces principles like uncertainty, non-locality, and probability waves that govern its behavior, which runs completely contrary to everything we know. However, without getting bogged down in what a single photon or electron actually is, the fact remains (or so physicists have convinced us) that we can't tell one photon from another. They always, and I mean *always*, react identically under the same conditions.
We can apply that same logic to concepts like the Big Bang, the curvature of spacetime, anti-gravity... things that deal with the "infinitely large."
Because physical logic (the math used to explain it) is so hard to apply to complex systems, biologists introduced the concept of emergence to explain things like living matter. It means the whole provides a new quality that you simply can't predict just by knowing its individual parts.
Nice topic. This could turn into a "nice," high-quality discussion.

Let’s take a box of jigsaw puzzles. Every single puzzle is distinct from the next—yet they share certain commonalities, which is precisely the point of the game; if they weren't similar in some fundamental way, the act of assembly would lose its inherent charm. The pieces themselves are all unique—none are identical—but once they are slotted together, they coalesce into a single, unified image.
So, we have one whole entity composed of numerous parts that constitute that whole; these parts are diverse—meaning no single piece is an exact replica of another—yet they remain similar enough to function within the set.

Now, let us introduce a second box of puzzles—one depicting an entirely different scene, perhaps utilizing a different format, a different painting technique, or a completely different color palette.
If we compare the puzzles in this second box to those in the first, we encounter a secondary layer of divergence—a doubling of variety, if you will. First, the puzzles in the second box are different from one another; second, they are fundamentally different from the first set—not that a single piece from the second could ever fit into the image of the first—and this distinction is of an entirely different quality than the internal differences found within the first box alone.

When performing this comparison, since the first group of puzzles is tethered to that initial whole (the image), they maintain their own internal consistency—they represent a collective "sameness" when contrasted against the puzzles in the second box, just as the second box possesses its own internal "sameness" relative to its own pieces.

Now, consider a box of marbles. Not one marble in that container is identical to another; they are merely similar. If we were to compare a single marble to a single jigsaw puzzle, the disparity in quality begins to stack up exponentially... it isn't just that they differ in shape, but in purpose—they belong to two entirely different realms of play. However, if we were to compare one puzzle from the first box, one puzzle from the second box, and one single marble, we find ourselves with "puzzles" on one side and a "marble" on the other—thus, the puzzles are "the same" in relation to each other, but "different" in relation to the marble.

We could push this even further—comparing everything we’ve discussed so far (the puzzles and the marbles) to a bowl of beef stew... and suddenly we have "toys" (as a category of sameness) versus "food" (as a category of difference), because we are comparing two completely unrelated wholes.
...

Therefore, it seems evident—at least according to my own observation of this obvious truth—that the whole (or the various wholes) acts as the metric that defines the relationships of similarity, difference, equality, and "sameness."
A single object of observation will always possess simultaneous qualities of similarity, difference, and equality, provided it is viewed as an element within different wholes.

Furthermore, within any single creative whole, nothing is truly identical; everything is distinct from everything else. In that same vein, one could argue that within this World (if we treat the World as a single, unified whole), everything is distinct from everything else.

If we just assume for a second that everything is actually born from this one single, absolute energy, then all these different shapes it takes—this whole materialization process—is really just creating these little illusions of similarity and difference...

milsim, there aren't two things in this World that are ever truly identical... they can only be similar at best.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Let’s take a box of jigsaw puzzles. Every single puzzle is distinct from the next—yet they share certain commonalities, which is precisely the point of the game; if they weren't similar in some fundamental way, the act of assembly would lose its inherent charm. The pieces themselves are all unique—none are identical—but once they are slotted together, they coalesce into a single, unified image.
So, we have one whole entity composed of numerous parts that constitute that whole; these parts are diverse—meaning no single piece is an exact replica of another—yet they remain similar enough to function within the set.

Now, let us introduce a second box of puzzles—one depicting an entirely different scene, perhaps utilizing a different format, a different painting technique, or a completely different color palette.
If we compare the puzzles in this second box to those in the first, we encounter a secondary layer of divergence—a doubling of variety, if you will. First, the puzzles in the second box are different from one another; second, they are fundamentally different from the first set—not that a single piece from the second could ever fit into the image of the first—and this distinction is of an entirely different quality than the internal differences found within the first box alone.

When performing this comparison, since the first group of puzzles is tethered to that initial whole (the image), they maintain their own internal consistency—they represent a collective "sameness" when contrasted against the puzzles in the second box, just as the second box possesses its own internal "sameness" relative to its own pieces.

Now, consider a box of marbles. Not one marble in that container is identical to another; they are merely similar. If we were to compare a single marble to a single jigsaw puzzle, the disparity in quality begins to stack up exponentially... it isn't just that they differ in shape, but in purpose—they belong to two entirely different realms of play. However, if we were to compare one puzzle from the first box, one puzzle from the second box, and one single marble, we find ourselves with "puzzles" on one side and a "marble" on the other—thus, the puzzles are "the same" in relation to each other, but "different" in relation to the marble.

We could push this even further—comparing everything we’ve discussed so far (the puzzles and the marbles) to a bowl of beef stew... and suddenly we have "toys" (as a category of sameness) versus "food" (as a category of difference), because we are comparing two completely unrelated wholes.
...

Therefore, it seems evident—at least according to my own observation of this obvious truth—that the whole (or the various wholes) acts as the metric that defines the relationships of similarity, difference, equality, and "sameness."
A single object of observation will always possess simultaneous qualities of similarity, difference, and equality, provided it is viewed as an element within different wholes.

Furthermore, within any single creative whole, nothing is truly identical; everything is distinct from everything else. In that same vein, one could argue that within this World (if we treat the World as a single, unified whole), everything is distinct from everything else.

That’s a great example! 🙂
We could apply that logic to pretty much anything, including simple misunderstanding.

Since ancient times, humans have been tripping over the same philosophical hurdles
because we keep jumping into the "wrong picture" or the "wrong box." 😁

And it's the wrong picture and the wrong box because of that fundamental lack of alignment.

Harold Adams5 said:That’s a great example! 🙂
We could apply that logic to pretty much anything, including simple misunderstanding.

Since ancient times, humans have been tripping over the same philosophical hurdles
because we keep jumping into the "wrong picture" or the "wrong box." 😁

And it's the wrong picture and the wrong box because of that fundamental lack of alignment.

The thinking mind—that restless part of us constantly asking "who am I?"—is fundamentally flawed from the jump. It starts with a distorted self-image, so its entire mission becomes an attempt to find itself within various external frameworks. It tries to grasp its own identity through these perceived wholes, hoping that by understanding how it relates to them, it might finally realize who it truly is—and how much it actually differs from its own preconceived notions.

I'm glad I managed to hit on a relevant example here; perhaps it serves as a small sign—or even a confirmation—that we are all drawing from the very same box...😁

rustymaker5 said:If we just assume for a second that everything is actually born from this one single, absolute energy, then all these different shapes it takes—this whole materialization process—is really just creating these little illusions of similarity and difference...

...with the caveat that we can—and perhaps even ought to—view this perceived distinction as an undeniable reality... take, for instance, two individuals who combine to form a third; they are fundamentally the same essence, yet it was precisely their inherent difference that allowed that creation to happen—the distinctness of a man and a woman producing a child as a unique expression of that same oneness.
The illusion isn't merely an illusion; it is simultaneously a state of being different.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:...with the caveat that we can—and perhaps even ought to—view this perceived distinction as an undeniable reality... take, for instance, two individuals who combine to form a third; they are fundamentally the same essence, yet it was precisely their inherent difference that allowed that creation to happen—the distinctness of a man and a woman producing a child as a unique expression of that same oneness.
The illusion isn't merely an illusion; it is simultaneously a state of being different.

It's a pleasure 🙂

Quincy:

Illusion isn't merely an illusion; it is simultaneously something distinct.

That distinction arises because our capacities for visualization
and reproducing what we remember aren't identical
—especially when dealing with sensory input.

Sensory cognitive biases don't produce identical wholes from the same raw elements,
which is perfectly fine—provided it’s somewhat constructive.
These typological differences don't just shape a person's psychological profile;
they drive specific creative interests
(musical, literary, visual, technical, etc.).

In fact, this very diversity allows us to tackle life's challenges effectively
and fuels the creation of culture and general progress:
from engineering breakthroughs to various forms of "construction"
(across all fields of life and science).

Jonathan Brooks8 hit the nail on the head, and I’m with him on this.
But let's face it: once you start talking about a single "photon" in physics, you're stepping way beyond our basic understanding of what matter actually is. At those microscopic scales, all the traits we associate with "oneness" or the "uniqueness" of matter—things like time, solidity, mass—just vanish. We still don't even have a consensus on what a photon really is—is it a point, a string, a wave, or a field? Regardless, the fact remains that in our math, it behaves as a singular, identical thing.
Plus, bringing "non-locality" into the philosophical mix basically wipes out the distinction between the one and the many. Everything is tied to everything else at the same time. So, what are we looking at? Is it a single entity manifesting itself in a bunch of different ways, or is it a collection of "ones" existing simultaneously with one another?
Naturally, that leaves us with the massive question: why the hell is the World so incredibly complex and diverse?

Mark Torres14 said:Jonathan Brooks8 hit the nail on the head, and I’m with him on this.
But let's face it: once you start talking about a single "photon" in physics, you're stepping way beyond our basic understanding of what matter actually is. At those microscopic scales, all the traits we associate with "oneness" or the "uniqueness" of matter—things like time, solidity, mass—just vanish. We still don't even have a consensus on what a photon really is—is it a point, a string, a wave, or a field? Regardless, the fact remains that in our math, it behaves as a singular, identical thing.
Plus, bringing "non-locality" into the philosophical mix basically wipes out the distinction between the one and the many. Everything is tied to everything else at the same time. So, what are we looking at? Is it a single entity manifesting itself in a bunch of different ways, or is it a collection of "ones" existing simultaneously with one another?
Naturally, that leaves us with the massive question: why the hell is the World so incredibly complex and diverse?

One could argue that we are dealing with a single entity that divides itself into a multitude—a plurality that, despite its internal differences, retains that singular essence from which it originates and which constitutes the whole...
Therefore, because the diverse emerges from the identical, that diversity necessarily carries the seed of the original within itself.

This multiplication of the same occurs through DIVISION—through splitting. Take biological cells, for instance; they multiply by dividing, where one becomes two. Or consider the branches of an oak tree growing out of a limb as a form of division and expansion. Even a child is essentially a division of their parents.

Thus, if two distinct individuals emerge from a single source, those two remain, fundamentally, just a separated "one."

Or perhaps—I am merely a fragmented collection of my ancestors' traits; while we are all part of that lineage, it is the unique way those traits are partitioned that creates the distinction between us—that specific combination of divisions is what sets us apart from everyone else.

As a skydiver... I haven't really read much about this or spent a lot of time dwelling on it lately—my focus just isn't where it used to be. But one thought immediately popped into my head and I had to share it... wouldn't it make sense that if something is made up of fewer basic elements, it would naturally be more similar to another entity of that kind than something way more complex?

Jonathan Brooks8 said:One could argue that we are dealing with a single entity that divides itself into a multitude—a plurality that, despite its internal differences, retains that singular essence from which it originates and which constitutes the whole...
Therefore, because the diverse emerges from the identical, that diversity necessarily carries the seed of the original within itself.

This multiplication of the same occurs through DIVISION—through splitting. Take biological cells, for instance; they multiply by dividing, where one becomes two. Or consider the branches of an oak tree growing out of a limb as a form of division and expansion. Even a child is essentially a division of their parents.

Thus, if two distinct individuals emerge from a single source, those two remain, fundamentally, just a separated "one."

Or perhaps—I am merely a fragmented collection of my ancestors' traits; while we are all part of that lineage, it is the unique way those traits are partitioned that creates the distinction between us—that specific combination of divisions is what sets us apart from everyone else.

Unity equals oneness, which really means that any sense of separation is just illusory...

I suppose I don't know

though I do know that I know nothing at all🙂

It is quite curious, isn't it? How every living thing—and I am thinking specifically of a leaf here, though we might as well apply this to a human being—is so distinct while still in that *tabula rasa* stage... that state of being new, or young...

And yet, as time passes, things shift... even while remaining fundamentally unique. A tear in a leaf, a scar on a thigh, those things that didn't quite kill you but merely... changed you. All while Time itself remains entirely unchanged.😉

The essence doesn't change; I suspect that is part of its very definition, wouldn't you agree?
And yet, essence takes on different forms, simply so that in "new" eras, it remains just as capable of carrying that essence forward.

coastalskipper92 said:I suppose I don't know

though I do know that I know nothing at all🙂

It is quite curious, isn't it? How every living thing—and I am thinking specifically of a leaf here, though we might as well apply this to a human being—is so distinct while still in that *tabula rasa* stage... that state of being new, or young...

And yet, as time passes, things shift... even while remaining fundamentally unique. A tear in a leaf, a scar on a thigh, those things that didn't quite kill you but merely... changed you. All while Time itself remains entirely unchanged.😉

The essence doesn't change; I suspect that is part of its very definition, wouldn't you agree?
And yet, essence takes on different forms, simply so that in "new" eras, it remains just as capable of carrying that essence forward.

👍👍👍 regarding this sentence.

(And what about the associations we make? Why do viruses fight against vaccine immunity? Has no one told them they’re supposed to die off?) 😁

HONESTLY I mean, I guess I’m on board with everyone here.
It’s probably all just the same stuff—you know, those tiny little subatomic particles that make up chemical elements, which then basically build everything alive or dead on this whole planet.
But under some sort of umbrella, we humans tend to lump any living thing, plant, or even random objects and phenomena together just so we can categorize them into bigger groups to make sense of the chaos. We usually just stare at the surface-level traits—like species, anatomy, where it came from, how it acts, whatever
—to get by. Then, I suppose, everything else is what makes us distinct from one another, even when we're stuck in the same group of similar beings.

coastalskipper92 said:I suppose I don't know

though I do know that I know nothing at all🙂

It is quite curious, isn't it? How every living thing—and I am thinking specifically of a leaf here, though we might as well apply this to a human being—is so distinct while still in that *tabula rasa* stage... that state of being new, or young...

And yet, as time passes, things shift... even while remaining fundamentally unique. A tear in a leaf, a scar on a thigh, those things that didn't quite kill you but merely... changed you. All while Time itself remains entirely unchanged.😉

The essence doesn't change; I suspect that is part of its very definition, wouldn't you agree?
And yet, essence takes on different forms, simply so that in "new" eras, it remains just as capable of carrying that essence forward.

That's an interesting way to put it, mentioning a leaf...🙂...because I used to feel that sense of individuality so strongly, right up until the moment I realized that we are essentially just leaves ourselves, and that I amexactly the same. Within that essence lies the exact same thing.
Now, I guess I'm just trying my best not to let myself forget that...

I mean, isn't it obvious that two different plant lists could be identical...

Exactly the same size, completely indistinguishable in every way, and made up of the exact same entries

It’s just a slightly smaller version, assuming the shape is identical...

And those tiny subatomic particles—do they actually look the same to everyone, or is it just because we're trapped within our own oversized perspective?
I've never been much for the natural sciences; I don't quite grasp them...