Identity and Change: Is Anything Ever the Same?

Core idea

How can an object survive change? Paint a cupboard and it is still the same cupboard; change your hairstyle and you are still you. Yet one could argue that any change destroys the old object and replaces it with a different one. Logicians answer that this rests on an ambiguity: it confuses an object with its properties. A new hairstyle gives you different properties — it does not make you a numerically different person.

English hides the ambiguity inside the verb "to be". "The table is red" uses the is of predication (attributing a property). "I am Graham Priest" uses the is of identity (stating that two names pick out one object). Logic separates them: predication folds into the predicate, while identity gets its own symbol, =.

Priest's argument: Identity is the special relation every object bears to itself and to nothing else; an identity statement says that two names refer to the same object.

Why it matters

Leibniz's Law and its easy counter-examples

The key inference is Leibniz's Law: if x is the same object as y, then x has every property y has, and vice versa. It powers ordinary substitution — establish that two descriptions name the same thing and you may swap one for the other. Some apparent counter-examples are easy to defuse. "Mary knows the race-winner got a prize" does not let you substitute "John" for "the race-winner", because Mary knowing something is a property of Mary, not of John. And a road that is tarmac at one end and dirt at the other is one road with two refined properties — tarmac at point X, dirt at point Y — not a violation.

The hard counter-example: change over time

Now bring in time. x = x is true by the very meaning of identity — true now and at every future moment, so G(x = x) ("it will always be that x = x") holds. Feed that into Leibniz's Law and you get: if x = y, then y too is always going to be identical to x. In short, if two things are ever identical, they are always identical. That conclusion is exactly what change seems to refute.

Key takeaways

Mental model

Copy sourceZoom

Practical application

When an identity puzzle bites, the disciplined first move is to ask whether the troublesome predicate is precise enough.

Example

Take a single amoeba, A. By fission it becomes two amoebas, B and C. Before the split, B was A and C was A, so B and C were the same. After the split, B and C are plainly distinct. Yet Leibniz's Law with G(x = x) told us identical things stay identical forever. Notice the escape routes all fail: saying B was merely "part of" A is wrong, because an amoeba has no parts that are themselves amoebas; saying B and C "came into existence" only at the split is wrong, because if C had instead died at the split we would not hesitate to say B simply is A. The only remaining move — that A becomes a new object the instant it changes — drops us straight back into the topic's opening worry that nothing survives change at all.

Related lessons