Great. I was looking for you to clarify that point. I wasn’t sure what you were saying.
I don’t think an abstract concept or even a class-type, continuum, or anything else, concrete, abstract, etc, can be said to equal to itself. A is not A is any true sense, ever, neither logically nor physically; as useful as it is to act and believe otherwise, in the truest sense A is not A, and moreover this is knowable, rationally verifiable.
Somehow I understood that, and all the dots that were connected before are still connected.
WHERE are they connected if no one can even touch them?
So 2 is not 2? Gamer is not Gamer? knowable is not knowable?
What you are saying is:
2 = not 2
Gamer = not Gamer
knowable = not knowable
You see how ridiculous that is?
“A is not A” is a contradiction in terms. You’re telling us that we can use an oxymoron to represent reality.
recognition (reA)
is not cognition (A)
is not the thing cognized [ I ]
but
you need all three to know that 
I see why it would seem to be the very definition of nonsensical. That’s why it’s so interesting. Because if you take it to the realm of metaphysics or look at it from a purely physicalist perspective, where we arguably should be looking at it IMO, instead of a mathematical or idealist perspective, refuting what I’m saying is actually more nonsensical.
Consider your nonsense refuted. What is nonsensical is denying the fact that A does in fact equal A, and Gamer does in fact equal Gamer. To deny your own existence is the real nonsense.
Do you expect nature to disagree/argue/refute your claim… or… identify with it?
My claim is not empirical or scientifically falsifiable. It is a claim maybe purely in the realm of the physicalist tradition of philosophy, and is a well-reasoned metaphysical conclusion worthy of discussion. A=A is true in math and useful in general but just doesn’t and can’t be an accurate description of any object in the universe, or any continuum, flow, class, or any other object you can think of.
You can’t have an accurate description
when you change the rules of the game.
We’re playing with stamps and stickers,
in the knowledge game.
A stamp is just a stamp,
even if you demand it accurately represents a dog or a cat.
It has a little picture on it, but that’s all.
You’re basically digging a hole,
without a bridge,
then demanding someone cross the pit,
without a bridge.
This is not an insult.
Iambigus does something similar.
He monkeys with the foundations of thought,
then declares truth a miss.
Truth was never about the absolute physical object.
Truth was about how helpful an idea is for thought and communication.
If you all don’t understand what im saying,
we have a problem.
I didn’t change the rules of the game other than say “within a physicalist universe”
I’m also not saying how it’s useful. It may very well be useful to operate with a more accurate and stable definition of identity. But my comment is not meant to be a scientific one and it’s not falsifiable.
All is in flux…all is changing…
Not even you, as an organism, are ever exactly the same…
There is no thing, in existence…no immutable, indivisible, singularity.
You’ve been brainwashed. That’s what reading too many books does to your brain. When you consume too much information, you end up suppressing your own ability to think. You end up being overcome by what other people think or you simply fail to adhere to the laws of logic, i.e. to the laws of proper thought.
“A =/= A” is a self-contradictory statement. It’s similar to “Square-circles exist”. Both are self-contradicting, nonsensical, statements. You’re using a self-contradicting statement to represent reality. But the laws of logic actually say that if a map of reality contains a contradiction within itself then any other map that does not do so is better, more accurate, than it. No amount of observation can override that. No amount of scientific experiments can override. No amount of scientific or non-scientific consensus can override of it.
You have entered the realm of anti-logic.
That’s irrelevant. Noone is talking about whether or not everything is changing and whether or not there are immutable and indivisible things. “A = A” does not imply any of that.
Before deciding if you are contradicting yourself on purpose, this is a good scan:
philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu … hysicalism
Magnus, in a physicalist universe, abstract concepts and concrete substrates are intertwined, questioning the notion of fixed identities. Reason urges us to explore the dynamic nature and interconnectedness of all objects, challenging our understanding of stability. This is a metaphysical topic, not one that is restricted to maths or science.
I think Ichthus and Lorikeet sort of get it. But if not, it’s probably my fault. That link was a good scan but doesn’t refute what I’m saying, however, it probably expands on it.
I hope we can find a way forward without more ad hominems, although I give you the benefit of the doubt that they are mild ones.
I’m not brainwashed and don’t read enough books to have been brainwashed. These are actually just my own thoughts.
I haven’t been here in a while, but that doesn’t mean i haven’t stopped loving philosophy or discussing things.
I just can’t find a place to discuss where it doesn’t get ugly and make me a worse person. I hope this is a safe place to
explore without being insulted. I can obviously hold my own in that dept., as some of you might remember,
and my powers in that area are significantly greater than when I left, so I’m now sort of like Superman One Million.
But honestly, I just want to talk philosophy. Not fight. Can we please do that?
I wasn’t trying to denigrate you as much as I was trying to warn you.
I don’t know what made you adopt that belief. What I know is that the idea that the Law of Identity is false is fashionable nonsense. Whatever contains a contradiction within itself is nonsense. And you can’t have a more blatant contradiction than “A =/= A”. But beside being nonsense, it’s also fashionable, i.e. popular.
There are people who think that “1 = 0”. There is a guy on PN whose name I can’t spell who holds that belief. Here on ILP, there’s Ecmandu who does so. But because “1 = 0” is the kind of nonsense that isn’t fashionable – you won’t hear university professors and other authorities proclaiming that it’s true – I can accept that these guys arrived at it on their own. They just failed to reason properly.
However, when someone attacks the Law of Identity, and when they mention the word “physics” when they do so, I get a very different impression. It looks like they were fooled.
Either way, feel free to present an argument. Alternatively, feel free to address my counter-argument.
is this like knowledge de dicto, de se, and de re? this is how david lewis knows that his cat bruce is in the house
im with you on this. what does it even mean to say that gamer equals gamer? thats a statement that never needs to be uttered. so to frame identity in that context seems at the very least…not useful. a=a is an abstraction that works to give us a concept of how things can be similar, but in the world of physical objects, there is no instance of a being equal to a, (aside from the self referencing one which again, is not useful). best take on identity theory in the world of physical objects that i know of is the one that at least gives us some utility by identifying/distinguising objects based on properties so that you can get close enough without having to bump into the whole “two things being in the same place at the same time” problem. like there is something that we mean when we say, “these two pencils are identical”, and its not that they are the same pencil, or that they share the same location in space and time simultaneously. so we sort it out to mean that they’re both made of wood, that they both function as things to write with, that they are both the same width and height etc. that’s where you’ve gotta be if you want to be in the world making sense. blah blah blah, problem of universals, etc etc