• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Philosophy-Age: Why are there so many things that are the same?

Status
Not open for further replies.

dasein

Member
urban-sprawl-florida.jpg


So I was walking down the street, enjoying the sun out, watching houses, birds, people, the clear blue sky, buildings, etc., when suddenly a thought hit me so hard that I stopped walking and I just stood there, a bit freaked out.

There is repetition everywhere.

This tree is basically a repetition of that other tree, this bench is a rough copy of that bench, that cloud is more or less a duplication of that other cloud up ahead, this house is practically identical to that other house, this person over here is similar to that person over there, this car is almost the same as that car, this bird looks like that bird, this sidewalk is no different from the other sidewalk, so on and so on, etc., etc.

Why is it that there is sameness in the world rather than pure dissimilarity, pure difference? Sure, we humans have the habit of keeping things the same, but when you look at nature, there is incredible amounts of repetition there too.

What is the principle of nature responsible for the ubiquity of sameness? Where does it come from? How is it possible? And, furthermore, is this principle itself subject to its own repetition?

Sameness and same-making seems like an inescapable feature of the fabric of reality.

NeoGAF what answers do you have to these puzzling questions?
 

SnakeXs

about the same metal capacity as a cucumber
Because over time, the weak are ruled out and the "best" becomes #1.

Now given your heinous suburbia picture, "best" doesn't always mean quality. It could mean cheapest, or most reliable, or best suited to the environment it's in, or most visually appealing.

That said, to downplay the variety in the world is silly.
 

Ionas

Member
Because cellular DNA replication machinery operates with extremely high fidelity, and intraspecies genetic variation in macroscopic organisms is quite low.
 

DanteFox

Member
absolutely NOTHING is the same.

even twins have slight differences between them. Even machines cannot create perfect physical copies of anything.

there are far too many variables in our real-world existence for sameness to exist. well, at least the odds are against it.

jeff_goldblum.jpg
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Because if something works then it tends to be reproduced.
 

Kamillio

Neo Member
The sameness we see in nature, whether it be the way organisms operate, or even the general structure of the cosmos, is because there are strict laws governing everything. To have very a disparate reality would insinuate a lack of order, and thus would exist paradoxically.
 

dasein

Member
SnakeXs said:
Because over time, the weak are ruled out and the "best" becomes #1.

Now given your heinous suburbia picture, "best" doesn't always mean quality. It could mean cheapest, or most reliable, or best suited to the environment it's in, or most visually appealing.

That said, to downplay the variety in the world is silly.

I seriously don't understand what you mean with "the weak are ruled out and the 'best' becomes #1." What relevance does that have to why there is just an overbearing amount of repetition in the world, including things like clouds that are similar to other clouds, volcanoes that are similar to other volcanoes, ant piles that are similar to other ant piles, planets that are similar to other planets, etc., etc.

I'm not downplaying the variety in the world, but notice that sameness is implied in variety: Without sameness, we wouldn't be able to tell that this X is a variation of that X, e.g., that this skateboard here is a variation of that skateboard over there. You need two things that are basically the same in order to pick out variety between them. Therefore, sameness is more fundamental and primary than variation.

Ionas said:
Because cellular DNA replication machinery operates with extremely high fidelity, and intraspecies genetic variation in macroscopic organisms is quite low.

But notice that the phenomenon of the ubiquity of similarity, sameness, likeness, is present even beyond the biological level. It is everywhere! (See what I said above, for example).

Zaptruder said:
Sounds like you're having an existentialistic crisis.

Sort of. This epiphany I had surely made the world seem so strange to me. Why should we expect reality to exhibit this feature of ubiquitous repetition? There is nothing about our knowledge and experiences of the world that would make us say, "yup, this is to be expected!" It seems like the ubiquity of repetition in the world is simply a brute fact, though there must be a principle of nature that should explain it. At least, that's my gut feeling.

DanteFox said:
absolutely NOTHING is the same.

even twins have slight differences between them. Even machines cannot create perfect physical copies of anything.

there are far too many variables in our real-world existence for sameness to exist. well, at least the odds are against it.

Rentahamster said:
If you perceive everything to be the same, you are looking at things much too broadly.


I thought about this but all it takes is a simple qualification: Why is there an absurd amount of approximately similar things?
 
If you're overwhelmed by all the sameness, do what I do; break stuff! If I see two identical glasses, you can bet I'm going to hurl one at the wall.
 

dasein

Member
cosmicblizzard said:
If you're overwhelmed by all the sameness, do what I do; break stuff! If I see two identical glasses, you can bet I'm going to hurl one at the wall.
Notice the paradox.

ntropy said:
did you read Schopenhauer recently? sounds eerily similar

No, but where can I read his stuff on this?!?!? Please, please tell me!
 

Plumbob

Member
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

And the people in the houses
All went to the university,
Where they were put in boxes
And they came out all the same,
And there's doctors and lawyers,
And business executives,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

And they all play on the golf course
And drink their martinis dry,
And they all have pretty children
And the children go to school,
And the children go to summer camp
And then to the university,
Where they are put in boxes
And they come out all the same.

And the boys go into business
And marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
 
Plumbob said:
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
:)

loved spektor's version.

also, smoke weed.
 

dasein

Member
Kamillio said:
The sameness we see in nature, whether it be the way organisms operate, or even the general structure of the cosmos, is because there are strict laws governing everything. To have very a disparate reality would insinuate a lack of order, and thus would exist paradoxically.
This would be, I think, the standard if not the best approach to explaining the mass amounts of approximate repetition of things.

But there are limits to this sort of explanation. Presumably laws bring order to reality. Laws do not bring about lack of order; that is, they do not cause chaos or randomness. However, when we look at nature we notice that the phenomena of chaos, randomness, disorder occur frequently, which is to say, instances of random events repeat over and over again. For example, a fundamental particle behaves randomly, and we know this precisely because we detect over and over and over again its random behavior. Thus there is repetition of the same sort of quantum event, and this can be described by a physical formula; we have the formula of this phenomenon because we see it over and over again, in repetition. Therefore, if chaos is also repetitive, and natural laws are not the cause of chaos, natural laws cannot fully account for the ubiquity of repetition in reality.
 

dasein

Member

Davidion

Member
Why is repetition popular? Refer to the discoveries made by Henry Ford; it comes down to a matter of efficiency.

Replicating numerous similar units within a system is efficient, and therefore creates an improved yield of production and manufacturing. Deliberately introducing specific anomalies within a system decreases efficiency and requires more work per unit reproduced. Therefore, in a system where the primary goal is for something to manifest its own patterns and aspects as much as possible, like nature, you will always see a lean towards less variation and more replication.

It's a simple reality, one which is manifested in all aspects of life, manufacturing, production, business, and even nature; it's more efficient to do one thing over and over and over again than to introduce unique characteristics and deviations into each unit. Replication and redundant processes are always more efficient and more attractive from a pure efficiency standpoint than producing unique units. What "uniqueness" that are introduced, that people in this thread are referring to as "no two things are EVER THE SAME" can usually be dismissed as statistically acceptable variations introduced by, well, uncontrollable variables.

Things like this should be taught as a standard part of everyone's education; its a reality that manifests itself in all aspects of our lives. But people are fucking stupid and can't think that far, so that's that.

Ugh.
 

dasein

Member
Davidion said:
it's more efficient to do one thing over and over and over again than to introduce unique characteristics and deviations into each unit.
Are you suggesting that there is a principle, law, or set of laws in nature that brings about efficiency rather than inefficiency?

If so, this presents a problem: What does it mean for nature to be efficient? Efficient at what, efficient for what? A thing is efficient with respect to some end, some goal. But nature doesn't have goals, ends, final causes. It is indifferent to these. (It seems like you might be importing categories of human intentionality to nature itself, which clearly does not have intentionality.) Therefore, if efficiency logically implies ends, and nature does not have ends, nature does not exhibit, tend to, or bring about efficiency.

Davidion said:
But people are fucking stupid, so that's that.
hey!!!!!!
 

Davidion

Member
dasein said:
Are you suggesting that there is a principle, law, or set of laws in nature that brings about efficiency rather than inefficiency?

If so, this presents a problem: What does it mean for nature to be efficient? Efficient at what, efficient for what? A thing is efficient with respect to some end, some goal. But nature doesn't have goals, ends, final causes. It is indifferent to these. It seems like you might be importing categories of human intentionality to nature itself, which clearly does not have intentionality.


hey!!!!!!

lol

That's actually relatively close to what I'm suggesting. Natural laws and principles, in and of themselves in their nature of being laws and principles, "suggests", induces, and causes reproduction and replication. We all operate within these constraints, and our actions manifests themselves as such.

No, I'm not importing categories of human intentionality to nature itself; rather, it's just the other way around. We replicate, and our intentions are usually manifestations of natural inclinations to replicate, and reproduce, and remanufacture (Fear Factory came to mind for a sec). Efficiency and drives to thereof can be seen in our everyday social organizations.

Pour the same bag of sand into a mold, and the grains of sand will never organize themselves in the exact same way over and over again. However, you'll still get the same general shape every time.

Edit: And when I say people are stupid, I'm talking about their insistence on advocating ethnic and moral systems and have the tendency to completely ignore our common metaphysical boundaries at the same time. Not a stab at you, natch.
 

Keio

For a Finer World
I'll go with "human brains are wired to ignore miniscule detail, thus creating illusions of sameness". The idiot-savant who notice the staggering amount of dissimilarity tend to be unable to function.

Human brain actually spends a lot on the effort of ignoring and forgetting things.

Of course manufacturing standards, uniformity of chemical & geological & physical processes and DNA are to blame for the certain level of verissimiltude apparent to us.

But read Plato, he got this pretty well back a few thousand years ago. Metaphorically, at least.
 
The human mind looks for connections between objects. It's how design in any form exists. It's about creating relationships between objects. You're seeing "same" where you want to see same. You're making connections where somewhere else would see suburban homes and think they looked like random dots on a canvas.
 

Kamillio

Neo Member
dasein said:
This would be, I think, the standard if not the best approach to explaining the mass amounts of approximate repetition of things.

But there are limits to this sort of explanation. Presumably laws bring order to reality. Laws do not bring about lack of order; that is, they do not cause chaos or randomness. However, when we look at nature we notice that the phenomena of chaos, randomness, disorder occur frequently, which is to say, instances of random events repeat over and over again. For example, a fundamental particle behaves randomly, and we know this precisely because we detect over and over and over again its random behavior. Thus there is repetition of the same sort of quantum event, and this can be described by a physical formula; we have the formula of this phenomenon because we see it over and over again, in repetition. Therefore, if chaos is also repetitive, and natural laws are not the cause of chaos, natural laws cannot fully account for the ubiquity of repetition in reality.

This is an interesting point, but one that I think is flawed when it comes to the definition of chaos. Chaos theory as far as I know (and I don't claim to be an expert on the topic) has more to do with unpredictability than it does with randomness. In this sense there is nothing truly random about the phenomena of chaos or "disorder" in nature and they are still defined strictly by the governing laws of the universe. The problem moreso lies with our inability to predict the outcome of certain events chiefly because we could never hope to quantify all the variables required or churn through the possibly infinite series of mathematical processes controlling these systems. The universe doesn't have this problem since it's "math" is instantaneous and unrestricted.
 

trollcity

Neo Member
dasein said:
Are you suggesting that there is a principle, law, or set of laws in nature that brings about efficiency rather than inefficiency?

If so, this presents a problem: What does it mean for nature to be efficient? Efficient at what, efficient for what? A thing is efficient with respect to some end, some goal. But nature doesn't have goals, ends, final causes. It is indifferent to these. (It seems like you might be importing categories of human intentionality to nature itself, which clearly does not have intentionality.) Therefore, if efficiency logically implies ends, and nature does not have ends, nature does not exhibit, tend to, or bring about efficiency.


hey!!!!!!
i think you're becoming a christian!
 
dasein said:
So I was walking down the street, enjoying the sun out, watching houses, birds, people, the clear blue sky, buildings, etc., when suddenly a thought hit me so hard that I stopped walking and I just stood there, a bit freaked out.

There is repetition everywhere.

This tree is basically a repetition of that other tree, this bench is a rough copy of that bench, that cloud is more or less a duplication of that other cloud up ahead, this house is practically identical to that other house, this person over here is similar to that person over there, this car is almost the same as that car, this bird looks like that bird, this sidewalk is no different from the other sidewalk, so on and so on, etc., etc.

smb.jpg
 
Genetics, natural selection, efficiency for survival. And I'm done.
I really don't know what you're talking about, it makes perfect sense for things to be similar (whatever that means). You said something like 'that tree looks like that other tree' in the OP as if it's some strange thing. They're only both called trees because they're similar. If they were different enough they wouldn't both be referred to as 'tree' now would they?

If we can accept that all life had a common ancestor that slowly diverged over a huge amount of time I think it's fairly logical to say that a lot of things are going to be pretty dang similar looking. I just don't see where you're coming from here, the fact that there are universal laws as to how the universal forces are applied to matter would dictate similarity.
 

Slavik81

Member
dasein said:
For your picture, the answer is because it's way cheaper to make a hundred houses that are more or less the same than to make a hundred unique homes. If they're similar, its easier to get the materials you need, and to train people to construct them. If they were built at the same time in the same place by the same people, they're going to be similar.
 

gerg

Member
Depending on the question, I'm not sure that the topic is as much a matter of philosophy as it is of economics, biology, or sociology.

Edit: Unless you're asking about how or why we know things as similar (ie. asking about our concepts of resemblence), in which case that would be philosophy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom