’
Wouldn’t stating “x” prove the law of identity? Or maybe that the proof of something requires pointing to at least a second entity and its relation to “x” is itself a disproof of the independence of entities.
To me, “x is not x” proves a law of difference, but difference still depends on two (id)entities separated by at least a third (id)entity.
How does stating something prove the law of identity or anything?
If a person states something, then does it necessarily mean something? And what would or could it mean, anything?
That’s the point, pretty much. If you want to identify something or anything and then you require a second entity for that proof, then how can anything be objectively identified, or in other words, identified in a way that is consistent and congruent between different entities and every possible relation between them?
That’s right. We are left with a paradox of difference and similarity between (id)entities.
Then, the way to build back the Law of Identity is to be consistent between differences while keeping the possibilities for chaos open…
You’re exactly right.
Your Law of Identity is the principal or identity. It is never prooved, and always present. No concept is possible if not for identity, and every concept is an identity, and no concept can be considered as proved. Rather, when we deal in concepts, identities, we test, and try to prove them against reality. Another example of identity is conservation because identity is always conserved. Let me offer you an example: A dog is a dog, as an identity. Is a fox a dog? The name suggests otherwise, and genes show a great equality. The question gets down to a comparison of identities, and without the understanding that the concept remains the same, is conserved, the comparison becomes meaningless and stupid. To show a difference something must remain the same, in this case, the concept of the dog, a Dog, its identity. Not all dogs are the same, in fact, none are exactly equal, and yet all are equally dogs. And; Lines are lines, as identities, and no line is equal to another, objectively, and all are equally lines, because no difference between lines as defined take any line out of the identity of line. It was never a concept designed for amusement; but for understanding. You cannot reach a meaningful comparison between apples and oranges because their identities are not equal. Make Sense?
Of course; I intuitively knew this and appreciate your offer of a clarification of terms (differentiating “principal[sic]” from “law”) over the intuition which (largely) agrees with yours.
It does lead me to a further consideration: that identity transcends proof may cause a problem to some theories of logic. Or it may be that difference and identity somehow prove each other, or the combination of them simultaneously prove each other. (I am not very good with formal logic and do not hesitate to admit this - really need to work through the logic textbook I bought a year ago.)
I’m not sure, since I’m so uneducated in formal logic, whether I’m secure on whether these ‘proofs’ are very strong by the standards of Western formal logic; if they would be accepted as proper proofs at all. It seems as if we hold the principles of identity and difference as transcendent of proof or at least any conceivable proof or disproof. Would it be proper according to the rules we generally accept to declare their stated relationship as a mutual proof and a sufficient one?
What is accepted as a “proof” is what shall stand the test of time, due to its ability to explain, predict, and anticipate real-space-time actions.
What is true is true, but this is a misleading perception of identity and how things are identified. The “true” form is actually different than this…
And what principles are those SOS, that you say what you say or know what you know? The Law of Identity doesn’t imply certainty, which is its weakness.
You’ll have to be specific on which rules and proofs you’re talking about. Generally accept nothing.
Western conventions of logic (such as the law of non-contradiction), philosophy and epistemology of science and/or religion (such as ‘the scientific method’ and the epistemology of ‘faith’).
I don’t know where I’d go without some of the things I accept, such as the above mentioned law of non-contradiction. Unless you meant for me to generally accept the concept of nothingness, which I don’t and about which I’m rather undecided.
This the Western system; no where is it implied that it can’t be taken down and destroyed at will.
You don’t know where you’d go, because it is difficult to leave the known paths and carve your own. It requires pain and sacrifice.
The concept of nothingness is not to be trifled with unless you are willing to face some serious tribulations in life.
But for what benefit? I’m not so willing to destroy something unless it can’t be modified into something greater and benefits me more in a broken-down state than it did as was.
I meant more that I wouldn’t be aware of the possibility of a better path than those I currently know and take. But in some areas I am taking paths that require quite a bit of pain and sacrifice - such as that it will not be so popular with my family and friends when I come out of the agnosticism closet. rejecting the very religion by which they each define their ethos. (I don’t know the plural of ethos, by the way.)
Trifling with the concept of infinity got me in the current shithole. I don’t see how nothingness would ever pose a threat (except that it’s supposedly infinite).
Knowledge is the benefit, the Truth.
I see. And I don’t believe “ethos” has a plural form. I assume it’s only singular.
I define it as infinite, personally speaking.
There isn’t any paradox, only man’s misunderstanding. First of all our thoughts are merely reflective statements about reality, therefore they do not necessarily have any mapping to reality beyond just the mere existent structure of the statement itself.
Consider I say “pink oncomen are greater then flying snoogs”
Whats the cancelation of that statement? whats the identity of an ‘oncomen’ or ‘snoogs’?
a statement with no mapping is undefined, but it is still true, in that it is exists but there is no mapping.
There is duality being missed, consider the letter T, and I ask : Is T true?
What would you say? Either T is true, or it is not, or it is undefined. So tell me what T is…
Yes, they do have necessary mappings to reality if the thoughts-themselves are one-with-reality. And why should they be separated? It is the classification itself that separates it, the Law of Identity. You can disprove it. Then, there is no more disconnection. You’re left with a general misunderstanding of reality itself that can be clarified through language…
The cancelation of that statement is its irrelevance to my thought. What are the identities of the concepts? First of all, why do I care? This is another fundamental misunderstanding of identity. I only identify what is necessary. And if it is necessary for me to identify and define ‘oncomen’ and ‘snoogs’, then I’m going to ask the source of their creations – you. I don’t know what they are. Do you? You brought it up. You tell me. This is how it works.
There is always a mapping even if it’s subconscious. It’s a matter of awareness.
That depends on what you mean by [T] and [true]. I don’t see the duality here…
Which conception of [T] are we talking about, yours or mine? If you want my definition, then “T” is a letter and it is not one I think about often in-and-of-itself. Is it true? That depends on the circumstances. Why would I conceptualize it in the first place? That’s the problem at hand that I was addressing with this thread. What is identity? All I see are paradoxes and the stones beneath the foundation.
You didn’t understand what I said, I said the statement itself maps to reality (the information of the structure) but not the pattern the structure is pointing to. (i.e. it’s pointing to something undefined).
Of course, but again you misinterpreted and didn’t understand what I said.
Consider that T is a pattern of information in the sand, but it is also a letter that describes a physical sound, i.e. it is two things at the same time, it is the meaning and it’s symbolic referent at the sametime, the meaning and the symbol are like two halfs of a circle, joined together.
identity is merely a distinction (an inequality), consider you have a dot on a flat piece of all white paper, the identity is itself, all an identity is, is an inequality in an existent structure, that’s it. It’s that simple.
Consider a string of binary digits which are made out of the surface of the ground, each 1 represents a pit or a land in the ground (molehill (1) / pothole (-1)), and all concepts are made of their simplest element - that is a simple distinct aspect of some greater whole. You should see object oriented programming, our identities are merely sub INSTANCES of the one identity - reality.
See here:
Childens…Language and words are forms of relationship. It is difficult to have a relationship with people who use words you do not understand, or another language. It is nearly impossible in a political sense to have a relationship with people who use words to miscommunicate. People lie to suit themselves and debase the value of words in the process, but everyone should be concerned with the ultimate value we seek by communication. Since every word is a form, a concept, and idea…they do point to a certain reality, and a shared reality, a relationship; so we oought to look side ways at any attempt to make language seem meaningless, or to rob meaning from language. Language does have a common purpose just like every other form, and like every form I would say that purpose is recogniton, and realization. Use words otthers do not understand, or use words to serve yourself at my expense and I feel not realized or recognized. Words have a specific object even when used subjectively. Thanks
But all patterns are interconnected, even the ones we may not realize at first. And then after you see it, you think, “oh well that makes sense anyway”.
The universe and the human mind, as do all other conscious things, trend toward the same form of things.
I cannot always intuit accurate intents from others SC…
I say that the circle is complete and the two halves are no longer separate. The separation is an illusion and delusion in the human mind. And that’s what people are filled with.
I am familiar with the chaos of these kinds of things/systems. I think the main problem is understanding chaos…
That’s a fair summation. It doesn’t leave much to respond to – but it also kind of misses my original post/point.
Hmm, OK, how about this? The law of identity, things are what they are, ie., A=A, can be proven as follows. To be concrete, I will prove that Giraffes are giraffes.
P1. All things that are African ruminant mammals having a very long neck and legs, a tan coat with orange-brown to black blotches, and short horns are giraffes
P2. All things that are giraffes are African ruminant mammals having a very long neck and legs, a tan coat with orange-brown to black blotches, and short horns.
Conclusion: All things that are giraffes are giraffes.
If you believe that the premises are sound and the Barbara type syllogism is valid, then this conclusion has been proven true.
This works because of the convertability of definitions. If xyz are the defining differentia of A, then both these definitional statements can be used:
All x,y,z things are A.
All A are x,y,z.
Then, if x,y,z things is taken as the middle term of these two statements, we get a valid Barbara type syllogism, and so the conclusion:
All x,y,z things are A.
All A are x,y,z.
All A are A.
If you apply Euler’s Circles to this syllogism, you will see the conclusion is indeed justified.
You could just say, we understand things to the extent that we can describe them with language or math. Language and math require a notion of identity in order to function at all. This doesn’t necessarily mean that there is really some identity amongst things in themselves, but to call it either way is pure speculation.