THERE MUST BE NO DIFFERENCE IF THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCE!

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

  1. ONE THING CAN NEVER REPRESENT ANOTHER THING IF THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCE IN THEM.

  2. THE EQUIVALENCES OF THOSE YOU REPRESENT MUST BE IN WHAT YOU ARE.

  3. THERE MUST BE NO DIFFERENCE IF THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCE. IF A DIFFERENCE HAS NO EQUIVALENCE TO REPRESENT IT CAN NEVER BE REPRESENTED.

How to disprove these statements?

2

What is “equivilance”, to you?

3

Equivalence= qualities that are comparable

4

Are you asking for critisism, or agreement, or just various comments?

What’d you like to see here most?

5

The burden of proof is on you, not us who reject your arguments. If you offer no proof then I can disprove the arguments just by saying “I disagree”.

6

Stella:
Russell?

  1. ONE THING CAN NEVER REPRESENT ANOTHER THING IF THEY ARE NOT IN EQUIVALENCE.

  2. You can never distinguish/represent/analyze things not in equivalence to you.

  3. THERE MUST BE NO DIFFERENCE IF THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCE. Things not in equivalence are neither same nor different.

Things can represent another thing even if they are not in equivalence. A plaster cast of a marble statute represents the form of the statute, though not eqivalent in material. We are not absolute machines that can grasp all these details, so language would be impossible. But language is, therefore such condition of equivalency does not need to be present. There must be a familiarity, but no equivalence in the idealist sense.
Nothing new is added by the propositions 2 and 3. They present a paradox- an absurdity when the first propositions are taken as true. It is true that if there is no differencfe then there is not equivalence because all the conditions of the first would be present in the second which then would make it impossible for them to be differentiated.

7

What proof is there for them? There must be proof for disproof, or else the thing in the box jumps out and frightens the equivilant child.

8

The proof against it lies in language itself. It’s ability to represent does not depend on it’s equivalency to it’s object.

9
  1. No difference is a difference to itself.
  2. No equivalence is a difference to itself.
  3. A difference is an equivalence to itself.
  4. An equivalence is not a difference to itself.

There must be no difference if there is no equivalence.

Your characteristics are the criteria to distinguish your characters.
YOU CAN AVOID A CHARACTER. YOU CAN NEVER AVOID A CHARACTERISTIC.
Avoidable is variant. Unavoidable is invariant.

10

Needless to say, I don’t understand.

11

Oh come on, Stella! Any professor from Tiruchirappalli knows that in equivalence testing, the null hypothesis is formulated so that the statistical test is proof of similarity; it states that the groups differ by more than a tolerably small amount. The alternative hypothesis is that the groups differ less, that is, they are similar. Thus, if one rejects the null hypothesis, one may correctly state that the groups are similar and eliminate the variants.

[crosses fingers]

12

Hi Stellamonika,
I assume you are a female…
are you a mathematician or logician?

I never understand your posts… but I believe they refer to absolute truth sometimes…
only you put it in technical termns…
am I right?

but seriously, I don’t understand what you mean :frowning: :astonished: