br>exactly alike synonyms, antonyms, English dictionary, English language, definition, see also 'exact',exalt',exacting',exaction', Reverso dictionary, English synonym, English vocabulary.
Synonyms for alike at Thesaurus.com with free online thesaurus, antonyms, and definitions. Dictionary and Word of the Day.
Click to Play!
An appeal to the republic of letters, in behalf of injured science, from the ... - George Douglass - Google BooksDefinition of alike in US English - (of two or more subjects) similar to each other.
Alike definition: If two or more things are alike , they are similar in some way. | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples. br>
Click to Play!
FACT CHECK: Are No Two Snowflakes Alike?Crossword Solver - Crossword Clues, synonyms, anagrams and definition of exactly alike.
This gray area must be eliminated. —Gary T., Monroe, Ga. Problem is, Gary, that no two hits in the NFL are exactly alike. — peter king, SI.com, "John Dorsey Will Help Cleveland Browns, But Not As Much As The Right QB. Can He Find One?," 13 Dec. 2017. Pundits and politicians alike are too quick to speak in superlatives. br>
Click to Play!
grammaticality - Is "almost exactly" correct English? - English Language & Usage Stack ExchangeAlike definition, in the same manner or form; similarly: They treated all customers alike. See more.
[not before noun] very similar My sister and I do not look alike. Airports are all alike to me. Though John and Andrew look exactly alike, they act quite differently. compare unlike Oxford Collocations Dictionary verbsbe, look, seem, … adverbremarkably, very, very much, … prepositionin See full entry More Like ThisAdjectives. br>
Click to Play!
Here are the chances of you having a doppelgängerThe necessity which we assert to hold when we say that “if a given patch of colour be yellow, then any patch which were exactly like the first would be yellow” seems to be purely verbal. The meaning of the words “exactly alike” is “not differing in any respect” and the exclusion of difference in general involves the inclusion of.
The definition of species has changed over the years as our understanding of evolution and molecular biology has improved.. This definition of spe- cies is called typological and is based on morphology, or populations of potentially in- terbreeding organisms that the structure and. of the same species are exactly alike. br>
Click to Play!
Alike Synonyms, Alike Antonyms | bonus-slot.topThe identity of indiscernibles is an principle that states that there cannot be separate or that have all their in common.
That is, entities x and y are identical if every possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa; to suppose two things exactly alike definition is to suppose the same thing under two names.
It states that no two distinct things such as can be exactly alike, but this is intended as a metaphysical principle rather than one of natural science.
A related principle is the indiscernibility of identicals, discussed below.
A form of the principle is attributed to the German philosopher.
It is one of his two great metaphysical principles, the other being the.
Both are famously used in his arguments with and in the.
Because of its association with Leibniz, the principle is sometimes known as Leibniz's law.
Some philosophers have decided, however, that it is important to exclude not wheel of fortune 50 cent slot machine apologise predicates or purported predicates from the principle in order to avoid either triviality or contradiction.
An example detailed below is the predicate that denotes whether an object is equal to x often considered a valid predicate.
As a consequence, there are a few different versions of the principle in the philosophical literature, of varying logical strength—and some of them are termed "the strong principle" or "the weak principle" by particular authors, in order to distinguish between them.
Associated with this principle is also the question as to whether it is a principle, or merely an principle.
Note that these are all expressions.
Neither of these principles can be expressed in.
Therefore, Principle 1 and reflexivity is sometimes used as a second-order for the equality relation.
Principle 1 is taken to be a and for the most part uncontroversial.
Principle 2, on exactly alike definition other hand, is controversial; famously argued against it--but the argument is fatally flawed from the standpoint of finite mathematics and its established experimental support in modern physics seebelow.
On the other hand, it is incorrect to exclude all predicates that are i.
If this is done, the principle says that in a universe consisting of two non-identical objects, because all distinguishing predicates are materially equivalent to at least one of the four given above in fact, they are each materially equivalent to two of themthe two non-identical objects are identical—which is a contradiction.
Please by the claims made and adding.
Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
February 2018 has argued against the identity of indiscernibles by counterexample.
Notice that to show that the identity of indiscernibles is false, it is sufficient that one provides a in which there are two distinct numerically exactly alike definition things that have all the same properties.
He claimed that removed how to win a million on wheel of fortune think a symmetric universe wherein only two symmetrical spheres exist, the two spheres are two distinct objects even though they have all their properties in common.
Black's argument appears significant because it shows that even relational properties properties specifying distances between objects in space-time fail to distinguish two identical objects in a symmetrical universe.
Per his exactly alike definition, two objects are, and will remain, equidistant from the universe's plane of symmetry and each other.
Even bringing in an external observer to label the two spheres distinctly does not solve the problem, because it violates the symmetry of the universe.
However, Black's argument is actually fallacious because the said model must be logically consistent--else a "counterexample" can be offered even against the principle that a counterexample can prove something false.
Specifically, in any universe, there must be a finite minimum unit--a quantum, at which level the concepts of symmetry as well as asymmetry, become meaningless.
Above this level, there is always asymmetry by at least that quantum.
Without a quantum level, we are left discussing when we have eliminated the last infinitesimal of asymmetry--corresponding directly to deciding exactly alike definition infinity is an odd or even number.
By eliminating the quantum from his model universe, Black has eliminated his argument from the realm of logic.
This point appears to have been well understood by Leibniz, for even were Newton to be credited for originating all other aspects of The Calculus as we have it today, nonetheless Leibniz's introduction of differential notation is undisputed.
To clarify the implication of requiring a quantum level, consider our own physical universe in all its directly and indirectly perceived reality.
Due to the curvature of space-time above the quantum level, Black's spherical objects are not identical due to their different locations, they do not have exactly the same properties--and in fact, neither can even be perfect spheres.
At the quantum level, his two spheres can actually be indiscernible, but due to the entanglement implicit in quantum theory--they lose their individual identities into a single atomic object.
To summarize: Above the quantum level, Black's spheres are discernible because they are not identical.
At the quantum level, they are indeed indiscernible, but identically one as well.
Again, Black's hypothetical model is imaginary.
To be more specific, using an example given by Steven Weinberg in his Dreams of a Final Theory: Were one to place two chambers of volume V side-by-side, each with gas at pressure P--say oxygen and chlorine--and then open a window between them, the gases would diffuse into each other's chamber.
Were both chambers to contain exactly the same gas--say oxygen--we would seem to have a real bonanza because no matter how much they diffuse into each other, we still have the original volume, pressure, and purity of the original gas species in each chamber.
This would imply that we have found a limitless energy source.
Unfortunately this is not what happens in reality.
When we statistically exchange oxygen molecule A for chlorine molecule B in the first case, we really do make an exchange.
However, there are no independent oxygen molecules A and B in the second case--because their indiscernibilitity make them identical--one single object.
In the hypothetical "mutual diffusion," nothing has been exchanged and so no energy has been released.
In fact, it appears that it was exactly such thinking as Black's that led to the various paradoxes of 19th century thermodynamics that were finally corrected by the quantum theory.
Further, this appears to be the thinking of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in their 1935 EPR paper that challenged check this out foundations of quantum there buy wheel of fortune game tempting through a thought experiment.
EPR, too, was proven to be incorrect--though in this case through demonstration by a set of analogous, actual experiments in the early 1980s, by Alain Aspect et al of the University of Paris --and by many research teams since.
As a final point here, the Aspect et al, experiments generated and measured circularly polarized photon pairs traveling in opposite directions.
Properly obeying conservation of angular momentum--to which circular polarization corresponds--whenever a component of one photon's polarization value was measured at one location several meters from the point of origin, and the same component was measured in the one across the laboratory, they measured oppositely.
However, which component was measured at a given station was random.
This should have meant that only for the subset of cases of different component measurements should the correlations have proven statistically random.
However, it turned out that only when all the data was looked at--including the cases of matched component measurements--were the measurements statistically random.
The implication was that as predicted by quantum theory--a specific value of each photon's circular polarization did not exist prior to measurement--only the sum of zero for both exactly alike definition, and that when theme, betsafe rs6 destroyed pity was measured--causing its value, the other photon had to have the opposite value.
Since the photons travel in opposite direction, it would be as though they were Black's symmetric spheres coming out in opposite directions from the plane of symmetry with no independent property of spinning at all.
Neither one spun in one direction nor the other nor did they not spin --yet their single whole had the property of "equal spin.
So whatever label the observer put on the one sphere--the other sphere already had the same label.
In short, during their "perfect symmetry" they were not only indiscernible, but since they shared a single spin property, yet neither one individually had any spin property, their existence was only as a single whole.
However, one famous application of the indiscernibility of identicals was by in his.
Descartes concluded that he could not doubt the existence of himself the famous argumentbut that he could doubt the existence of his body.
This argument is criticized by some modern philosophers on the grounds that it allegedly derives a conclusion about what is true from a premise about what people know.
What people know or believe about an entity, they argue, is not really a characteristic of that entity.
A response may be that the argument in the is that the inability of Descartes to doubt the existence of his mind is part of his mind's.
One may then argue that identical things should have identical essences.
Any of which will undermine Descartes' argument.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
First appeared in, Meaning and Use.
Roger, Physical Review Letters, Vol.
Einstein, B Podolsky, and N Rosen, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?
By using this site, you agree to the and.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of thea non-profit organization.