# Identity of indiscernibles

The

**identity of indiscernibles**is an ontological principle which states that two or more objects or entities are identical (are one and the same entity), if they have all their properties in common. That is, entities "x" and "y" are identical if any predicate possessed by "x" is also possessed by "y" and vice versa. A related principle is the indiscernibility of identicals, discussed below.The principle is also known as

**Leibniz's law**since a form of it is attributed to the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. It is one of his two great metaphysical principles, the other being theprinciple of sufficient reason . Both are famously used in his arguments with Newton and Clarke in theLeibniz-Clarke correspondence .Philosophers have to come to recognise, however, that it is important to exclude certain predicates - or purported predicates - from this principle. This is necessary to avoid either triviality or contradiction. For example - as detailed below - the predicate which denotes whether an object is equal to x (often considered a valid predicate), and purported predicates denoting what someone believes about an object (which some philosophers have considered to be valid predicates), may both be excluded. As a consequence, there are a few different versions of the principle in the philosophical literature, of varying logical strength - and some of them are termed "the strong principle" or "the weak principle" by particular authors, in order to distinguish between them.Fact|date=October 2007

Associated with this principle is also the question as to whether it is a

logical principle, or merely anempirical principle.**Identity and indiscernibility**There are two principles here that must be distinguished (two equivalent versions of each are given in the language of the predicate calculus).Fact|date=October 2007 Note that these are all second-order expressions. Neither of these principles can be expressed in

first-order logic .#The indiscernibility of identicals

#*For any x and y, if x is identical to y, then x and y have all the same properties.

#*:$forall\; x\; forall\; y\; [x=y\; ightarrow\; forall\; P(Px\; leftrightarrow\; Py)]$

#*For any x and y, if x and y differ with respect to some property, then x is non-identical to y.

#*:$forall\; x\; forall\; y\; [\; eg\; forall\; P(Px\; leftrightarrow\; Py)\; ightarrow\; x\; eq\; y]$

#The identity of indiscernibles

#*For any x and y, if x and y have all the same properties, then x is identical to y.

#*:$forall\; x\; forall\; y\; [forall\; P(Px\; leftrightarrow\; Py)\; ightarrow\; x=y]$

#*For any x and y, if x is non-identical to y, then x and y differ with respect to some property.

#*:$forall\; x\; forall\; y\; [x\; eq\; y\; ightarrow\; eg\; forall\; P(Px\; leftrightarrow\; Py)]$Principle 1. is taken to be a logical truth and (for the most partFact|date=October 2007) uncontroversial. Principle 2. is controversial.

Max Black famously argued against 2. (see Critique, below).The above formulations are not satisfactory, however: the second principle should be read as having an implicit side-condition excluding any predicates which are equivalent (in some sense) to any of the following:

#"is identical to x"

#"is identical to y"

#"is not identical to x"

#"is not identical to y"If all such predicates are included, then the second principle as formulated above can be trivially and uncontroversially shown to be a logical tautology: if x is non-identical to y, then there will always be a putative "property" which distinguishes them, namely "being identical to x".On the other hand, it is incorrect to exclude all predicates which are

materially equivalent (i.e. contingently equivalent) to one or more of the four given above. If this is done, the principle says that in a universe consisting of two non-identical objects, because all distinguishing predicates are materially equivalent to at least one of the four given above (in fact, they are each materially equivalent to two of them), the two non-identical objects are identical - which is a contradiction.**Critique****ymmetric universe**Max Black has argued against the identity of indiscernibles by counterexample. Notice that to show that the identity of indiscernibles is false, it is sufficient that one provide a model in which there are two distinct (non-identical) things that have all the same properties. He claimed that in the symmetric universe where only two symmetrical spheres exist, the two spheres are two distinct objects, even though they have all the properties in common. [*"Metaphysics: An Anthology". eds. J. Kim and E. Sosa, Blackwell Publishing, 1999*]**Indiscernibility of identicals**As stated above, the principle of indiscernibility of identicals - that if two objects are in fact one and the same, they have all the same properties - is mostly uncontroversial. However, one famous application of the indiscernibility of identicals was by

René Descartes in his "Meditations on First Philosophy ". Descartes concluded that he could not doubt the existence of himself (the famous "cogito ergo sum " argument), but that he "could" doubt the existence of his body. From this he inferred that the person Descartes must not be identical to his body, since one possessed a characteristic that the other did not: namely, it could be known to exist.This argument is normally rejected by modern philosophers on the grounds that it derives a conclusion about what is true from a premise about what people know. What people know or believe about an entity, they argue, is not really a characteristic of that entity. Numerous counterexamples are given to debunk Descartes' reasoning via "

reductio ad absurdum ", such as the following argument based on asecret identity :#Entities "x" and "y" are identical if and only if any predicate possessed by "x" is also possessed by "y" and vice versa.

#Clark Kent is Superman's secret identity; that is, they're the same person (identical) but people don't know this fact.

#Lois Lane thinks thatClark Kent cannot fly.

#Lois Lane thinks thatSuperman can fly.

#Therefore Superman has a property that Clark Kent does not have, namely that Lois Lane thinks that he can fly.

#Therefore, Superman is not identical to Clark Kent.

#Since in proposition 6 we come to a contradiction with proposition 2, we conclude that at least one of the premises is wrong. Either:

#* Leibniz's law is wrong; or else

#* A person's knowledge about "x" is not a predicate of "x", thus undermining Descartes' argument. [*[*]*http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/dpitt/Egos.pdf*] Alter Egos and Their Names, David Pitt, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 98, No. 10 (Oct., 2001), pp. 531-552, page 550**ee also***

Duck test

*Elephant test **Notes****References*** Lecture notes of Kevin Falvey [

*http://www.philosophy.ucsb.edu/fac_profiles/falvey.html / UCSB*]**External links*** http://www.consciousentities.com/tactics.htm

* [*http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-indiscernible/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry*]

*Wikimedia Foundation.
2010.*

### Look at other dictionaries:

**identity of indiscernibles**— Principle enunciated by G.W. Leibniz that denies the possibility of two objects being numerically distinct while sharing all their non relational properties in common, where a relational property is one that involves bearing a relation to another … Universalium**identity of indiscernibles**— noun The principle that if two objects are indistinguishable from one another with respect to all of their properties then they are identical. Syn: Leibnizs law … Wiktionary**identity of indiscernibles**— The principle associated with Leibniz, that if A and B have exactly the same properties, then they are identical. See also the converse principle, the indiscernibility of identicals … Philosophy dictionary**Indiscernibles**— In mathematical logic, indiscernibles are objects which cannot be distinguished by any property or relation defined by a formula. Usually only first order formulas are considered. For example, if {A, B, C} is indiscernible, then for each 2 ary… … Wikipedia**Identity and change**— The relationship between identity and change in the philosophical field of metaphysics seems, at first glance, deceptively simple, and belies the complexity of the issues involved. This article explores the problem of change and identity . Change … Wikipedia**identity**— /uy den ti tee, i den /, n., pl. identities. 1. the state or fact of remaining the same one or ones, as under varying aspects or conditions: The identity of the fingerprints on the gun with those on file provided evidence that he was the killer.… … Universalium**identity**— All of us agree with Joseph Butler that everything is what it is and not another thing. The difficulty is to know when we have one thing and not two. A rule for telling this is a principle of individuation, or a criterion of identity for things… … Philosophy dictionary**Identidad de los indiscernibles**— Se llama identidad de los indiscernibles, o a veces también ley de Leibniz, a una variedad de principios filosóficos,[1] principalmente: Si dos objetos a y b comparten todas sus propiedades, entonces a y b son idénticos, es decir, son el mismo… … Wikipedia Español**qualitative identity**— Two things are qualitatively identical if they share all their properties, and numerically identical if they are not two, but one. According to the identity of indiscernibles, no two distinct things literally share all their properties, although… … Philosophy dictionary**Leibniz: truth, knowledge and metaphysics**— Nicholas Jolley Leibniz is in important respects the exception among the great philosophers of the seventeenth century. The major thinkers of the period characteristically proclaim the need to reject the philosophical tradition; in their… … History of philosophy