3

Is it possible to conclude, whether similarity or difference is more fundamental notion?

Is there any support from e.g. biology as to whether our senses support similarity more than difference?

From a mating perspective one could argue that similarity dominates.

However, from an other point of view, I find that our surroundings exhibit a pattern of dissimilarity. E.g. my room has items which have many dissimilar qualities.

Is it then context-sensitive?

Can it be subjective preference?

mavavilj
  • 2,854
  • 19
  • 34
  • I think this is a good question. I think there should be some good.. technical answers.. my opinion at tbe moment is rhat context is everything. – Richard Feb 15 '19 at 12:40
  • Total identity or similarity can be seen objectively (e.g. quantum particles) or subjectively. Total difference is undefined except verbally. French structuralist wrote about that. – sand1 Feb 15 '19 at 12:46
  • 1
    "More fundamental", as in whether our perceptual/cognitive apparatus evolved to first detect similarities or differences? This seems like a question for Psychology SE or Biology SE. [Derrida](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%C3%A9rance) is a famous proponent of the "fundamentality" of differences in language:"*Language has neither ideas nor sounds that existed before the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic differences that have issued from the system... A linguistic system is a series of differences of sound combined with a series of differences of ideas*". – Conifold Feb 15 '19 at 14:06
  • @Conifold More like, whether we're biased to look for similarity more than difference. – mavavilj Feb 16 '19 at 10:26
  • 3
    The two ideas are complementary and mutually dependent. For two things to be different they must be the same in some way. For them to be same they must be different in some way. . –  Feb 16 '19 at 11:47
  • @mavavilj - I don't quite understand your comment. I'm not making up a theory but stating a fact. In order for twe things to be different they must be comparable within a shared category. They must both be things, they must both be thoughts in our mind and so forth. As for which is the more fundamental notion, I think we see from the idea of symmetry-breaking in physics that sameness (not just similarity) is 'more' fundamental. –  Feb 16 '19 at 12:06
  • @PeterJ Complementarity seems as it requires more "extrapolation", than direct observation that they are the same. Thus "complementarity" requires significant effort to identify. The amount of imaginable differences is very large. Why not adapt a view on maths that two things are same if one cannot find a single counter example where they are not. E.g. if you had to prove "all swans are black" and there are only 0.0001% of swans that are black. Then one'd need to exhaust 99.99% swans in the complement of "black swans" in order to prove one's case. Why not go the other way around? – mavavilj Feb 16 '19 at 12:11
  • @mavavilj - I'm not talking about things being different or similar, but about the meaning and definitions of the words. Swans may be different in many respects. and each one is unique, but they are all in the category 'swans'. No amount of observational evidence makes any difference to the conceptual/semantic point that to identify the difference between two things requires that they share similarities, while to share similarities they must be different in some way. This may not be what you're getting at in the question but it is a relevant issue. . . –  Feb 16 '19 at 15:30
  • It is the similarities: genus first, differentia later, when time is short act on the broadest resemblance, better to mistake a pattern of light and shadows for a tiger than a tiger for a pattern of light and shadows. Shermer called it [Patternicity](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/). But again, this is Psychology SE material. – Conifold Feb 17 '19 at 03:26
  • 1
    This is not really an answer, but I've noticed in physics that negative feedback is a very important attribute of life. It permits homeostasis. In negative feedback, one first does a "difference" operation to figure out what is not the same as one's goal, then takes action to cause the system to become more "similar." Temporally, the difference happens first, but the constructs we use to manage "similar" (such as circuit networks) are constructed much earlier. – Cort Ammon Mar 18 '19 at 15:56
  • This smells like "the one and the many" argument https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/1ovrmany.htm –  Nov 14 '19 at 05:09

1 Answers1

1

According to the empirical studies of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) project, there is a semantic prime for similarity, LIKE, but not for difference. Difference and dissimilarity would be expressed through the combination of the semantic prime for negation: NOT LIKE. For there to also be a semantic prime for difference would be redundant.

While it is true as Geoffrey Thomas said in a (now deleted) answer that the two concepts imply each other, because negation is also a fundamental concept, I would say it's reasonable to say that similarity is more fundamental than difference.

curiousdannii
  • 1,747
  • 4
  • 18
  • 25
  • In order to compare A with B the two must first be kept distinct, separate. This already implies negation, the negation of their identity. For, if there is a primary identity, X is X, no question whether the two items are similar or not, can arise, even the question of "equality" X=X (as opposed to identity, because equality demands properties or assigned values), cannot arise. So, to view a similarity, _nonidentity_, or negation, must first come into play. And the negation is not a cognitive judgement - it is an ontological accident. – ttnphns Jul 16 '19 at 20:49
  • @ttnphns Sounds like something you should put in your own answer - I can't see how anything you've written relates to the NSM. – curiousdannii Jul 16 '19 at 20:54