Identity Principle ?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Identity Principle ?

Postby nameta9 » Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:50 am

The internal contradiction of the Identity Principle is that in order for two entities to be the same they must be distinguishable as two therefore there must be some difference, some element that distinguishes them and at the same time in order for them to be different there must be some element of the two that are the same in order to even compare them, to even relate them. Some element of the two entities must be exactly the same, equivalent in order to even relate them since any comparison between the two must be hinged on some reference point, some invariant that serves as the starting point, the zero of the coordinate system so to say from which to measure the two and obtain two different measurements and some element must be infinitely different in order to distinguish them, to declare them as two entities upon which the Identity Principle can be declared, the values V1, V2 that are plugged into the function "Identity Principle(V1, V2)".

So they are the same and different at the same time, a pure total contradiction, thought paths and processes break down, logic breaks down, this is the end of the line for our Man Brain as it is presently configured and designed. You must change the design of the present Man Brain to eliminate the contradiction...

Also, time is the constant change of the configuration of bits describing the entire universe, and since this configuration is always changing no matter what, in a sense time travel is impossible because each time instant is one configuration of bits that will never come back again and can never be obtained again, each instant is a unique number that can never be written down again no matter what, a fleeting number that was and will never be again no matter what, no matter how infinite the universe is in size and time or anything else, infinity in time and space and anything cannot ever make that fleeting instant appear again, no matter what. So this can be a definition of time.

Of course you can locally configure the bits of a chunk of matter in a cube to be exactly like New Jersey in 1953 with all the people there and reproduce the exact same "Information Relationships" between people and their minds and memories and all and actually really travel back in time, at least as far as our Man Brain experience can tell and distinguish (let alone play around with it inserting new memories and mixing different time slots and elements, different time periods (a year 2000 model car in NJ of 1953 and such) to see how people react and such). But the chunk of matter in the cube that is configured accordingly to make believe and simulate that it is an environment that "once was" is delimited in space, maybe a chunk of matter, a cube of matter 100 km wide and long and high where the simulation of that exact past is being performed in such a way that the actors within that "fake past" could never tell that they are in a fake reality, since the only thing that counts is the Experience and Reciprocal Information Relationships between the actors and their interaction with the material items and people surrounding them. However, outside of the cube of matter playing out the simulation, time would still be flowing forward, the configuration of the universe as a whole would still be ever changing, just that cube would be repeating a sequence that was performed previously for only some very small and insignificant subset of the universe as a whole, a small chunk of matter returning back to a configuration it once had, but only for that very small chunk of matter, it can easily be done and performed and played out. So it wouldn't contradict the laws of the never returning numbers again.

That would beg the question: is there a metaphysical entity, property of matter that makes it deeply different from itself, from another configuration of matter exactly equivalent, mathematically equivalent being billions of light years across, even if just one photon millions of light years away is different as compared to an exactly equivalent chunk of matter inside a cube of hundreds of millions of light years across ? In other words, take two cubes of matter 100 million light years wide and high and long, make them 100 % exactly equivalent and then change just one photon: does that change the two chunks in such a way as to express the flow of time ? is time hinged only on change no matter how small, and change is constant if only because particles are never at thermal rest ?
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1887
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: Identity Principle ?

Postby nameta9 » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:52 pm

From:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=525749


“Why is there Something rather than Nothing” ?

What are the constraints ? What reference system is imposing what constraints on reality, the universe, its design, its logic, etc. ? None, and in fact questions like this imply some external, more general reference system where some kinds of laws or logic, some constraints are operating such that there must be some kind of logical answer: nothing further from the truth, the more general reference system, the superset where the universe or/and our logic, language, or the Principles of Identity and Non Contradiction are operating is a subset of, is a system where absolutely anything goes: even an answer like "NO REASON AT ALL", or "JUST BECAUSE" or anything else you can imagine.

The fact is we cannot imagine or contain a reference system that doesn't have logic, non contradiction and is void of cause and effects, whereas this is exactly the reference system where the universe and our laws of physics are delimited in: and this reference system is so general that it has no space or time constraints, no existence constraints, no constraints at all, or constraints which are way beyond our capability to conceive: and in fact the typical answers such as the "higher probability of something against nothing is the reason why there is something" implies that you are already within a smaller, simpler, more limited subset and reference system compared to a free and non constraining general reference system, implies that cause and effect and non contradiction are operating, but that already simply brings us back to our universe anyways, whereas the answer to why there is something and not nothing is outside of our logic and universe and even outside of any of our language and constructions and thought processes and such. In other words, it is even outside of the concepts of Questions and Answers, the question can have any and no answer at all, and you are free to lie, as saying non truths and lies and contradictions is the only way to begin to approach these kinds of problems, if they are even problems, if they are even questions and such.

Hence, why something and not nothing ? Just Because, FOR NO REASON AT ALL.
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1887
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: Identity Principle ?

Postby nameta9 » Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:27 pm

From:

http://instantsingularity.blogspot.com/

Interesting to see the difference between Theoretical Physics and Philosophy - Metaphysics:

Theoretical Physics:

Essentially states How far can we take logical and mathematical structures and still make them somehow be tied up to the real physical world, still have some kind of connection, even though very weak or indirect with physical reality ? An example could be Superstring Theory.


Philosophy and Metaphysics:

Essentially states How far can logical and mathematical structures be pushed operating on items as far removed as possible from the physical world, items as abstract, absurd and impossible as possible, hence having zero connection to the real physical world, but still being connected to each other through any form of logic, mathematical or thought processes and sequences ? An example could be the invention of a new state - meaning - concept expressing it as "the square root of the word thought".

But whereas the theoretical physicist and also the mathematician still has some constraints upon what he can do by some connection, no matter how weak, with the real world, or at least with some possible logic that is somewhat non contradictory and that somewhat still must follow some sense, the metaphysical and philosophical "Inventor" no longer has any constraints whatsoever, is free to investigate anything at all, make up any connections he wants, invent anything he wants, doesn't have any possible constraint operating upon his tasks. But then items as contradictory and absurd as possible can always be connected to each other or invented, just their existence, their delimitation in our mind, their presence already provides them with a minimum of logical and mathematical structure as in order to exist, in order to contain them in our mind, in order to even speak about them they must at least follow the basic principles of identity and non contradiction..
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1887
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: Identity Principle ?

Postby Amorphos » Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:24 pm

Ting, ting, the information about my glass of water cannot find a way to get inside the glass of water itself.
The only thing we know for sure exists is information, forget objects and trying to reduce everything to physics and math as metaphors concerning objects ~ which themselves are metaphors of information.
spatially located consciousness

the truth is naked,
once it is written it is lost.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
righteousness itself is divisive.
User avatar
Amorphos
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4508
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Identity Principle ?

Postby ZenKitty » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:15 pm

James S Saint wrote:Not really.
If I say, "that thing over there is an what I call an "XYZ"", then it is an "XYZ".
How can that be wrong? How can it be anything but an XYZ?
Now if I also said, "that thing over there [the same thing] is what I call an "RST", then that is also what that same thing is.
Then because of both of those being declared, I can say that an XYZ ≡ RST [identically equal]

How could it be wrong?


How could you be wrong? First, all you did was make the identity into a convention. Second, we would know that XYZ can't be ~XYZ, and RST is ~XYZ. For now you are holding that XYZ is both XYZ and not XYZ. In other words, you want XYZ=~XYZ. ](*,) . But that all depends on if you accept the law of non-contradiction.
Look at the triangle
Image

What beautiful eyes and mouths she has
Image
User avatar
ZenKitty
Thinker
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:35 am
Location: Omnipresent

Re: Identity Principle ?

Postby ZenKitty » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:16 pm

Philosopher8659 wrote:That is not possible. Same and different, aka form and material, aka absolute and relative, etc, are elements, not things, and cannot be predicated of.

Study Plato, and also mentioned in Aristotle.

One can either use them in construction, or one cannot actually think at all.


So you're just talking about thoughts, not about anything outside of thoughts, or thinking.
Look at the triangle
Image

What beautiful eyes and mouths she has
Image
User avatar
ZenKitty
Thinker
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:35 am
Location: Omnipresent

Re: Identity Principle ?

Postby ZenKitty » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:20 pm

Philosopher8659 wrote:
quetzalcoatl wrote:Because either description can never be exact, and the thing it describes can never be exact, hence its always going to be wrong.

_


Anthropomorphism, and a self-referential fallacy.

Names are neither true or false.

I would really hurt a great deal if I thought so poorly.


Interesting, you say that "I would really hurt a great deal if I thought so poorly", but that is self-referential, since you are talking about yourself and all of that. And I'd be actually very interested if you could ever escape Anthropomorphism, since you were the one that was talking about wouldn't be able to think, and yet it's a human thinking, and so going to make everything come into the way humans think. And math isn't exempt from this, either.
Look at the triangle
Image

What beautiful eyes and mouths she has
Image
User avatar
ZenKitty
Thinker
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:35 am
Location: Omnipresent

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users