Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This philosophical paper explores formal conditions for identity persistence claims, suggesting a nuanced understanding of identity across transformations.
This paper positions identity persistence under transformation within the Brouwer-Hilbert-HoTT-verification landscape. Hilbertian formalism asks whether symbolic moves are admissible; Brouwerian intuitionism asks whether objects or propositions are constructively witnessed; HoTT studies transport once an identification, path, or equivalence is available; formal verification proves properties of specified systems. Identity persistence asks a prior question for persistence claims: under what admissibility conditions may a transformation be treated as preserving the same identity-bearing unit? The paper develops this distinction through counterfactual tests: formal legality without invariant preservation, construction without persistence criteria, verification without replay-stable identity, and probability without stable objects of measurement. It frames identity persistence as a regime-bound account of invariant continuity, not as a replacement for existing foundations. This paper is a philosophical companion to the Universal Identity and Persistence forcing theorem and does not prove or extend the formal stack.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Devin Bostick (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: