Disproof of the Law of Identity

Assume that all knowledge is conceptual…

Conceptual Knowledge

The Law of Identity states (the “Truth”): x = x

However, if all knowledge is conceptual, then identity is infinitely more untrue than “true”: x ≠ x

Assume: [x] [equals] [x]

0=[x] 1-‘letter’, 2-‘symbol’, 3-‘sound’, 4-‘English’, 5-‘alphabet’, 6-‘ex’, 7-‘y’, 8-‘z’, 9-‘cross’, 10-etc.

0 ≠ 0

0 = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10


If all knowledge is conceptual, then symbolic meaning behind any “Formology” is always incomplete and imprecise in meaning. One neural concept is linked to all neural concepts at any given time. Nothing ever means the same thing under a space-time context.

Therefore, to understand any context, it must be thought of in terms of five working dimensions: space (1, 2, 3) - time (4) - reality (5)

The reality of any possible knowledge is contextual, outside of singular “points” in space-time. The mind moves through the past, present, and future to memorize, acquire, and predict functions. “Reality” itself can expand or collapse in a setting of space-time-reality based on reasonability, or, the ability for a person to “expand” or “collapse” their mind through contexts.

P.S. You’re welcome. Now go tell all your stupid little friends and claim this knowledge as your own. I look forward to being proven wrong/right someday. :sunglasses:

What about an identity theory that only deals in properties rather than essences of a spatiotemporal nature?

Properties are man-made and thus weak to subjective “error”. There’s no way to get around it except to extrapolate all possible contexts and trend them toward universal generality (which is almost guaranteed to be physically limited by currently unknown forces).

Properties are man made? Does an apple not have the property of having seeds? Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying that “property” is a theoretical term that has no basis in material fact?

This topic seems really interesting, but i just cant put together what you mean, maybe im just simple minded :stuck_out_tongue: , can you put it in simpler terms so i can try to understand this more clearly? If not no worries.

No, let me explain:

A “seed” is simply a word. What does it refer to? It refers to inter-subjective [things] that exist in “objective” contexts. Those contexts are explained through their word-relation concepts.

What does an [apple] or [seed] mean? It will be different for somebody who grew up on the Sahara desert correct?

0=[apple] ???

0=[seed] ???

The Law of Identity can’t tell you what either of these are without your inter-subjective experiences of them, on top of men’s “objective” outlook.

This is as simple as I get:

People never mean exactly what they’re saying. And language itself develops exponentially with relation to human population in order for people to better understand one another. As people understand one another more and more over time, then new philosophies, sciences, and spiritualities are created to better explain & describe the “mysteries” of human existence. Old mysteries become solved and new mysteries take their place.

Meaning is pure (and also non-existent) before it is communicated through action (verbal, written, etc.). When we attempt to communicate with each other, the forms lose meaning. People are just trying to lose less and less of that meaning over time.

Wonderfully insightful realunoriginal, and very enlightening as well. Why are the afraid of loosing it? i say let it go and show me true form. I find that very interesting indeed!

I believe something along the same lines. I think ultimately, all our difficulties arise from one basic illusion. We believe in the inherent existence of ourselves and all other phenomena. We project, and then cling to, an idea of the intrinsic nature of things, an essence that phenomena do not actually posses. Take a simple chair for example, we believe, without fully recognizing this belief, that there is such a thing as an essential chair-ness, a quality of a chair that seems to exist among its parts: the legs, seat, and back. In the same way, we believe there to be and essential and continuous “me” pervading the physical and mental parts that make up each of us. This essential quality is merely imputed by us; it does not actually exist.

Let it flow. :smiley:

Run with it!

plato has left the building



When did you add this? =D>


If all you’re saying is that the map isn’t the terrain, then there’s nothing interesting here. Identity theory is important and has pragmagtic uses in everything from language to mathematics. There are many variants of it. Everyone knows that symbols aren’t the objects that they represent, and that categorical thinking might not account for the nuances of reality per se. Are you making claims beyond those?

That depends on whether people are mistaking the map for the terrain.

Should we use a 15th century European map to discuss Texas congressional districts Smears? Hmm…

Where did I say that the Law of Identity is not important or pragmatic?

You could’ve fooled me the way everybody acts around here. On the contrary, nobody seems to know anything.

I have many claims to make. Do you think that the implication for this disproof is trivial? I assume that you believe so.

This is the disproof – take it or leave it. I don’t expect anybody to argue with me around here at ILP…

This place is lacking. Then again, everywhere is lacking. My hope died a long time ago.


Aren’t you just saying that you conceptualize to be: 0-[x], 1-‘letter’, 2-‘symbol’, 3-‘sound’, 4-‘English’, 5-‘alphabet’, 6-‘ex’, 7-‘y’, 8-‘z’, 9-‘cross’, 10-etc. ?

0-[x], 1-‘letter’, 2-‘symbol’, 3-‘sound’, 4-‘English’, 5-‘alphabet’, 6-‘ex’, 7-‘y’, 8-‘z’, 9-‘cross’, 10-etc. = 0-[x], 1-‘letter’, 2-‘symbol’, 3-‘sound’, 4-‘English’, 5-‘alphabet’, 6-‘ex’, 7-‘y’, 8-‘z’, 9-‘cross’, 10-etc.


am i missing out on something? Cause that means nothing to me…please someone fill me in!

No, because under a system of contextual knowledge, no symbol ever stays constant in space-time. Concepts are always changing, very rapidly in fact.

Thus, “A” never equals “A” in the classical, linear logic. It only trends toward “A”.

Think of 0.999… = 1 Why?

The limit towards 1 actually symbolizes a more “realistic” model of mathematics. Normally, 1 is taken to be an absolute constant as is any logic symbol, but that’s not the case under conceptualization. As soon as you idealize the number “1”, it changes contexts. That’s why quantum mechanics can’t reconcile with gravity. The contexts keep changing whenever people try to observe/judge a unit. The forces become continually undifferentiated.

Your model that you just gave me appears like this:

0 = 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 = 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

The problem is the series of what was previously “0” and how to solve for possible contexts and constantly changing concepts.

I’ll come back to answer soon.

How does the ‘law’ of identity apply to this;

A photon is a ‘wave’.
A photon is a ‘particle’.
A photon is ‘neither’.

Quantum theory has shown this to be true.

Goodbye Aristotle.

Aristotle, author of the earliest surviving text on logic, formulated a principle (the Aristotelian tautology denoted A=A ) that later achieved the historical distinction of being called the first principle as a proper name. It occurs in those of his writings that have come to be called the Metaphysics. The principle in Greek, and its transliteration, is (Meta ta physica, 1005b):

"τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ ἅμα ὑπάρχειν τε καὶ μὴ ὑπάρχειν ἀδύνατον τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ κατὰ τὸ αὐτό"
"to gar auto hama hyparchein te kai me hyparchein adynaton to auto kai kata to auto."

and in English translation:

"For the same (characteristic) simultaneously to belong and not belong to the same (object) in the same (way) is impossible."

This principle is the first expression of consistency in western thought. Any defining and reasoning in any language on any topic assumes it a priori. It cannot be doubted, as all doubting is based on inconsistency, which assumes consistency a priori.


I guess First Philosophy is finished then… :wink: