Proof of uniqueness

[Artistbrain]

I'm curious to know the smallest number of traits in a person that proves that they are statistically unique. That they are different than anyone else. I love mathematicians not math. Thanks

 

[Otis]

smallest number of traits [that proves a person is] statistically unique … different than anyone else

Hi Artistbrain. My first thought was, "That's a whopper of a question". My next thoughts are mostly questions, not that I expect you can answer them all. (I can't.)

Is this actually a question for statistics? For example, in sociology we have 'six degrees of separation' between humans on Earth. That might seem as if determined by statistics, but I think it's actually by graph theory or topology (those two branches overlap, in some sense). For fun, here's a 10-minute video about 'six degrees of separation' (including Neal DeGrasse Tyson mentioning near the end that the six-degree value decreases over time).

What are the traits under consideration? This concerns the strictness of your definition of 'uniqueness'. There are trait categories from which to choose or combine (eg: anatomy, genetics, health, genealogy, sociology, character, personality, intelligence, talents/creativity). A category could contain multiple traits, or maybe something like creativity could be classified as a trait within the intelligence category. These choices depend on how general or specific you'd like to be. (If you include DNA as a trait, then your answer is 1.)

Different from whom? Just to confirm that we're on the same page: All humans currently alive on Earth (not something like all humans since a specific time period; your extended family; some other group).

Seems to me that a statistical determination would require first counting (or approximating) both the number of traits and humans in the group. Some traits may be ignored because they will never impart uniqueness (like number of limbs). Probabilities within your group for each trait might come into play, as well. For fun, here's a 3-minute video quoting probabilities of anatomical traits in humans in a very general sense (i.e., focused on facial attributes and determined from mainstream- and social-media information, of all things).

What are your thoughts about my thoughts?
[imath]\;[/imath]

 

[Artistbrain]

My premise is the belief that each person is wonderfully unique. That may or may not be true. That is the question. With that in mind every human trait then every human experience, then every response, laid upon the who, what, when, where, and why of each individual is the formula. At least the beginning of the formula. There must be a minimum number of factors that when taken into consideration proof the concept of the individual. If not then we are hopelessly a part of an insect collective. This is really a philosophy question, however math is still math. Can it be proven that we are not pat of a singleminded collective or worse a mindless collective.

 

[Artistbrain]

Oh, Thank You for your thoughtful response.

 

[Artistbrain]

Also, yes it is a "Whopper" of a question. My problem is that when I was young, my folk philosopher mother taught me to think. It has gotten me into lots of trouble. Remember when Burger King had a Whopper promotion? They were on sale for one dollar. Hummmmm. I decided to measure the world via that formula. If I wanted a pair of shoes back then, it was 20 Whoppers, a used car, 2,000 whoppers. An average house now in California, near 1 million Whoppers. The current cost of the B-2 bomber now stands at $2.1bn Whoppers. It costs $135,000 Whoppers an hour to operate. On average Birger King sells 2.1 billion Whoppers per year. So every question is a Whopper.

 

[Steven G]

Why do you love mathematicians?

 

[Otis]

every human trait then every human experience, then every response, laid upon the who, what, when, where, and why of each individual is the formula

Hi. If we include human experience coupled with respective 'when' and 'where', then I don't think we need a formula to answer your question. I'm confident that every human has experienced at least one event at a specific time and location that nobody else has. Hence, we are all unique based on that single experience.

each person is wonderfully unique

I believe that's true, on one side of the coin (because the show must go on). But on the other side, all things are the same (the show).

Here is a question for you: When you use words like me, myself and I, what do you mean exactly?
[imath]\;[/imath]

 

[Artistbrain]

I mean exactly "self awareness." So by your response you agree that we are each "unique." My question remains...What number of factors, "proofs" are needed to state that uniqueness exists, or that, human uniqueness exists. I'm simply looking for the irrefutable threshold number. No one that I speak to seems to be wiling to offer that threshold number. Why? Is there no threshold, no number, or no willingness to say so. if there is no willingness to answer, then why?

 

[Otis]

So by your response you agree that we are each "unique."

Yes (at a lower level), because our conscious viewpoint — literally, our 'viewing' of reality — is unique, happening by happening. Nobody else's pattern matches mine.

What number of factors … are needed to state that … human uniqueness exists. I'm simply looking for the irrefutable threshold number

I think it's one. All you need is a single, unique human experience (context included) — and everybody has lots of those. They distinguish each of us from every other human pattern.

As far as irrefutable proofs go, that's decided in the mind of each person who desires to take a position in such a discussion. I offer my viewpoint only.

Math possesses elasticity (it's adaptable), but there needs to be a cogent basis for calculations, for symbolic reasoning, in order to determine formulas or write such proofs. Maybe your request is too idealistic for standard mathematics. (You'd mentioned earlier that, "This is really a philosophy question".)

I'll mention also, even when we do have mathematically-defined relationships between variables in our reality, some still cannot be expressed in terms of a formula. For example, the exact number of humans living in our solar system at any given instant. That relationship (between human tally and time) definitely exists as a mathematical function, but it can be described only in words. There's no formula possible.

I mean exactly "self awareness."

I would encourage you to consider the question further. Awareness is thought, and 'self' is simply another word in the list (me, myself, self, I).

What is 'I'?
[imath]\;[/imath]

 

[eipi45]

2. The mother's identity and the datetime of birth.
One problem with this is that conjoined twins would count as 1 individual; would that be true in your definition of a unique person?