John Clark wrote:
> >>If your brain and mine are identical then there is no way to
> >>determine if they've switched positions or not, and it wouldn't
> >>matter if they did.
> >The very language you use betrays the assumption that they
> >are not, in fact, identical. To wit, "positions" is plural
> It's possible. Grammar is not my strongest point so sometimes I don't write
> well English. I honestly don't know if "switched positions" or "switched
> position" is correct.
I wasn't criticizing your grammer, only pointing out that I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.
> >and perfect identity would require that they have an identical
> >position, no?
> No. If changing position(s?) of objects has absolutely no detectable effect
> on anything in the observable universe then the only possible conclusion is
> that the objects are identical and that position is not an essential aspect
> of identity. Otherwise the word "identity" becomes a meaningless string of
I don't know that we can measure identity by changes on other than what we discuss. I might just as well insist (I think) that the concept of instantaneously switching positions is the one that is nonsensical.