English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-10-22 08:39:43 · 14 answers · asked by LUCKY3 6 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

14 answers

Yes. By definition. Call it the identity rule, or whatever you wish (I can't actually remember atm), but A =A.
I am equal to me. If there were a clone of me, it would be equal to me. The only factor which can change this is time, in which case the question becomes Are all things equal to themselves if in different temporal zones or strands, in which case the answer is no, as they are in different timezones and that alone differentiates them. But being equal to itself only presumes a singular itself, and aside from the hazy world of quantum, the answer will always be yes.

2007-10-22 08:47:44 · answer #1 · answered by Rafael 4 · 4 2

Unless I am missing something, any one thing IS itself. It is not equal to itself, since there are not two things being compared. Now if there were an exact copy of a thing, then the two would be equal, assuming there were no intervening influences to change either the orginal or the copy.

Yikes, that was a brain-teaser all right. Was that the purpose of the question? LOL

2007-10-22 16:10:54 · answer #2 · answered by Pat K 6 · 1 2

They can be nothing BUT equal to themselves, or you commit a contradiction in terms. But what does your phrase really mean? Is an apple equal to an apple? It does not seem a sensible question to wonder about.

2007-10-22 18:22:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Yes, Rafael got it right. All things are equal to themselves, even if they are perceived differently.

For instance, I am "that awesome guy" to some friends of mine, while other people call me "that callous jerk". As long as both "guy" and "jerk" refer to me, the objects that they reference are equal value, simply because they both refer to a single aspect of something that is a whole.

This is not saying that the WORDS or INTENT of "guy" and "jerk" are identical. They aren't. They're indicators from two different points of reference. Nonetheless, the object that they refer to is still equal.

2007-10-22 18:14:09 · answer #4 · answered by Mythological Beast 4 · 1 1

Consider the fourth dimension and intrinsically apply it to each and everything on a quantum level rolling up into whatever may be fathomable.
Due to time being constantly changing at any level, this itself inhibits the static referencing of anything.

2007-10-23 07:57:23 · answer #5 · answered by Order In Chaos 4 · 0 0

no, no two things are of equal and one thing is not of equal. to be equal you have to achieve perfection in which case there is no such thing.

2007-10-22 16:06:44 · answer #6 · answered by qcyboy 6 · 0 1

Not at all.
Some things are greater than themselves.
A drop of rain becomes an ocean.

2007-10-23 06:50:30 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 2 1

that picture is not equal to this question nor category. (y'd ya change it!)

if there were 2 of u, u wouldnt neccessarily turn out the same in the end.

2007-10-22 15:47:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

to themselves?
it depends on who or what uses them and how

2007-10-22 20:45:51 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 0 1

if something is being valued at it's mirrored image then, yes, both things are equal.

2007-10-22 15:47:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers