Identity

[Thinker108]

If someone asked you the question of whether you’re a different person than you were 10 years ago, what would you say? You might initially be inclined to say yes, as you’ve changed as a person by developing both physically and mentally through experience. This is correct, however upon further inspection we see the answer is simultaneously no, because you have never (and can never) stop being you. The answer is yes and no, but on two different levels, hence there is no contradiction. On one level the answer is yes you have changed, but simultaneously on a general level the answer is no you haven’t, because your identity has remained the same across time. You can never stop being you, regardless of how “you” evolves. If you were to actually change who you are and stop being you, you ≠ you, and a contradiction would be reached. The identity of you = you cannot change across time, even though “you” still changes or rather evolves. This duality of change and sameness applies to everything, since each thing must have its own identity, otherwise things would not be distinguishable from each other. Understanding this, one can see how free will operates. In the same way you can change on one level and not change on another, free will exists on one level and doesn’t on another. On the level of your identity there is no free will, because across time you are constrained by the unchanging, unbreakable identity of you = you. Your identity level ensures who you will become is predestined from your very inception. Anything you change into over time is still what you already were from the beginning…yourself. You freely change into what you already are.

Understanding identity in this way also clarifies why our notions of time don’t seem to apply on the quantum scale—because the quantum scale exists at an extremely general level of reality, and thus is necessarily more inclusive of reality, even of time itself. The more general the level of the system, the more of the system it contains. Once a max level of generality is reached for a system S (i.e. the identity level of S = S), all information about the system becomes included or “known”, including all of its time (i.e, past, present, and future). Furthermore, this shows why the (yet unproven) Holographic Principle (which states that all the information of something is contained on its surface) is indeed true, because the surface of something defines what it is—it defines the identity of it. The boundary/surface of a system contains all of the system, and thus contains all information about it. Everything about a system can be deduced through analyzing its surface.

The concept of identity is so crucial because that’s exactly what objectivity (i.e. truth) is—identity. Suppose we have the equation 3X = 9. The value of X is 3, however such a claim is completely subjective. X is not actually 3, because in a different equation, say 5X = 10, the same X is now 2. X cannot be both 3 and 2 in actuality (i.e. objectively), but rather only subjectively in practice. Similarly to a human being, what X becomes is relative and influenced by its environment (i.e. the context of its equation), but in actuality it never becomes anything other than itself. Its identity is stagnant across the board. In both equations, X was and is still objectively X, despite its value subjectively changing across environments. X = X is its objective part, while its potential values are its subjective part. It has an infinite subjective potential. It changes while not changing on two different levels of itself.The same thing can be seen from multiple (relative) points of view, but that thing must always equal itself, hence it is objective. Things objectively always remain whatever they are, even if whatever they are is not objectively discernible. Because things necessarily always equal themselves, objectivity necessarily exists. Identity and truth are one in the same.

If the truth of something is its own identity, that is the truth about X is X = X, then the truth of all of life or reality must be reality’s own identity. Though it’s impossible to objectively discern precisely what the identity of reality is (since the “what” is subjective), upon digging deeper, one realizes the identity of reality closely matches the description of God. Firstly, the identity of reality is timeless and unchanging, since reality must always be equal to itself across time (despite reality seeming to evolve from day to day). Secondly, since the identity level of a system includes all information about the system, the identity level of reality must include all information about reality.The identity of reality is thus “all-knowing”, since it has a complete knowledge of reality—sitting in a complete knowledge of itself. If God is to be the ultimate truth, then He must be an ultimate identity, since identity and truth are synonymous. In Scripture, we see this is exactly how God refers to Himself, referring to Himself as the identity: “I AM THAT I AM.” The only way to objectively and fully describe X is to say X = X. The only way to objectively and fully describe God is to say God = God, or rather “God is what He is”. This statement of identity is the most simple and general statement possible to describe God, yet its simplicity/generality is the very thing which makes it the only statement that can fully encapsulate all of who God is! The statement’s maximal simplicity allows it to fully capture God’s maximal complexity. This notion of utmost simplicity containing utmost complexity hearkens back to the aforementioned Holographic Principle. The simplest part of a 3D object, namely its 2D boundary/surface, contains all of its more complex 3D information. The maximal simplicity of a system contains the maximal complexity of the system, because identity X = X contains everything about X. Identity is all inclusive. Truth is identity.

[Alan Masterman]

Identity, your post begins with a vagueness so characteristic of too much modern philosophy: you embark on a discussion of identity or "personhood", without offering any at-least-provisional definition of what it is you are talking about. Forgive my Socratic naivete, but I firmly believe that philosophical progress is only possible on the basis of clear definitions and agreed first principles.

Your mathematical passages are incoherent and were better omitted; and if you wish to introduce God into the argument, you will need to supply a definite proof of his/her existence. I think you should rethink your question and re-post it in more intelligible terms.