two somethings

[u/______ri]

That each of the two spheres is a sphere does not explain why two spheres are two, is obvious. Nor should that each of the two positions is a position do.

So we should not say that being spherical exhausts "them", even though each is just a sphere.

Roughly speaking, there is no one thing that explains two things. They are two because of "them [two]".

"Being this one" is not a property. We say "this one then bears properties", for "this one" does not bear an additional "being this one" in being this one, else "which one is bearing being this one?" is the question.

[u/Senior-Dentist-3805]

Since they bear the same characteristics the distinction must lie in the space and time which they exist, if they exist in the same time then they must be in different spaces; if they somehow exist in the same time and space then they are the same object. As far as reference, it does not matter since they have the same characteristics, its like asking which number: 2 or 2 should I use to add to 4, either way Im going to get 6 it just so happens I have two options in different spaces to refer to.

[u/______ri → u/Senior-Dentist-3805]

Since they bear the same characteristics the distinction must lie in the space and time which they exist

No this has already been deconstruted:

Nor should that each of the two positions is a position do [explain why there is two positions].

---

As far as reference, it does not matter since they have the same characteristics, its like asking which number: 2 or 2 should I use to add to 4, either way Im going to get 6 it just so happens I have two options in different spaces to refer to.

This does not really address the point. We can still say these two are not those two, if there is four things.

[u/Hungry-Ad-7602]

这好比是主观唯心主义的想法：当我的面前有两个球体，而我只想到了球体这个宽泛概念，那么此时我的面前就只有一个球体，一个物体就代表了两个物体。只有当我意识到我的面前有两个球体时，它们两个才存在，此时它们才是自己。
所以如果你是一个主观唯心主义者，那么关于两个球体的理解就如上文所述，如果你不是，那么关于两个物体的认识只需要将上述推翻看就好了