<@Zaratustra> In 2002 Jonathon Keats held a petition drive to pass 'A = A' as statutory law in Berkeley, California. Specifically, the proposed law stated that, "every entity shall be identical to itself". Any entity caught being unidentical to itself was to be subject to a fine of up to one tenth of a cent. The law did not pass.
<aintaer> dammit
<aintaer> I want that law
<@Cait> I'm wondering if it's possible for an entity not to be identical to itself, now. Quantum is weird to think about.
<aintaer> an entity cannot be unidentical to itself
<aintaer> since the definition of an entity necessarily implies its own identity
<aintaer> Quatum entities are only poorly defined by our inability to observe its identity without it changing
<@Cait> Is it dependent on the definition of 'entity' or the definition of 'identical'?
<aintaer> it's dependent on entity
<aintaer> identical is an identity relationship
<aintaer> entity is how we come to define it
<aintaer> is it through observation or by existence
<aintaer> the former opens up quantum violations of A=A
<aintaer> the latter does not
<aintaer> but once you open that up then the law basically would become entities cannot appear otherwise than they are
<aintaer> which is a silly law and would totally ruin halloween
<@Cait> Yes, but 'identical' needs some qualitative definition to be able to distinguish what 'identical' and 'unidentical' constitute.
<aintaer> I would say for unidentical, an entity with any aspect or parameter unlike the entity in question
<aintaer> This law would not maintain that A and only A = A
<aintaer> But just that A must = A
<aintaer> Hence any B = A would satisfy A = B without violating A = A law
<@Cait> So an entity would have to be unlike itself in some fashion?
<aintaer> yes
<aintaer> to violate this law
<@Cait> That seems reasonable for a start.
<aintaer> I support this law.
<@Cait> It needs to have mandatory enforcement built into it.