Identity Principle ?

[nameta9]

Identity Principle ?

I have issues with the Identity Principle, and it should be called Principle and not Law since it is The First Principle from which all else derives. It is just plain Wrong. That's all. I said it. And why ? Well any entity, in order to be identical to some other entity must be exactly the same, that is it must have the same spatial, temporal coordinates and all else. But how can anything even be the same to itself if even time is always flowing and changing ? the same entity that was a moment ago is already different from the same entity at this very moment because they now occupy two different time coordinates. And no matter how small you make the time interval, it is always different, at least in that measurent. Even at 10 ^ -1000 picoseconds which is way past anything we can measure, it still represents a different number, a difference, no matter what. And at the same time all other entities are also in different time slots, and the very act of perceiving and seeing and measuring any entity implies that the signal from the entity was generated a small time ago (the entity may not even be there when you receive the signal anymore ? or may just disappear and appear and fool you if even for a very small time interval ?), so the entire deal of calling something Identical to something else, even itself, implies a rough approximation, a rough guess, just a good enough measurement, a logical measurement, good enough "for us and our uses". Don't get too anal, you know, just accept that it is good enough.

But that is the whole point: if the Identity Principle was declared and established exactly because the Man Brain became "too anal" on the whole deal, started to want greater precision, started to want something more solid and absolute, and wanted to create a precise logic, then why did it stop halfway and just decide, oh, it is good enough now, now we can say two things are Identical ? Because it wanted to lie to itself and fool itslef, it wanted to state the falsest Principle of all time and namely two entities must be different from each other to be distinguishable and each entity must be identical to only itself, etc. But this is not possible, all entities are constantly different from themselves if only for the flow of time, and then start putting in the small movements in space and already two of the coordinates of the same entity have changed instantly, time and space, let alone all the other trillions of measurements against that entity that can be performed from all the other entities in the Universe, all of them also changing position, time slots and even properties and all.

So the real Principle should state: No Entity is Ever Identical to Any Other Entity or Even Itself, there is Absolutely no Basis for Any Logic at all, there is No Basis to Enforce the Principles of Non Contradiction, in fact Existence and all Entities are Total Absolute and Complete Contradiction of All with Itself and with All.

We only use these Principles of Identity and Non Contradiction because they are simple gadgets that just kind of work for us, that are just comfortable approximating tools for an approximating Man Brain that just decides the truth is anything that is comfortable to itself, not really wanting to achieve absolute truth.

Just like when Einstein became too anal trying to understand time and gravity and space and discovered how "relative" it all is, I became "too anal" with the Principle of Identity and discovered that it is false, a hoax and a joke.

All Contradictions are Welcome, I thrive in being Wrong, and who said I wanted to solve any problems ? I want ever more problems impossible to resolve, I want to fail ever more in my quest to resolve problems, I want ever more problems...

[Amorphos]

So the real Principle should state: No Entity is Ever Identical to Any Other Entity or Even Itself, there is Absolutely no Basis for Any Logic at all, there is No Basis to Enforce the Principles of Non Contradiction, in fact Existence and all Entities are Total Absolute and Complete Contradiction of All with Itself and with All.

Is the information about a thing equivalent in any way to that thing?

What if things are information based?

Is the relationship between information presented equivalent that received; does such an exchange itself change the information?

----------

So yea I kind of agree with your points, but we do know correlative things, don’t we? In other words we only need a roundabout idea of a thing to basically get it, such knowledge about the world doesn’t need to be exact ~ there is enough in the derivatives [even if implied] to form basic knowledge about things.

Otherwise we would have no idea about the world and couldn’t possibly be communicating here.

[nameta9]

Unless we are on the Outside looking In: we are outside of the Universe looking inside of it from Nowhere, or from a Platonic, Logical World or from a pure Information Relationship world: We are a momentary lapse of dependency on Matter, we are momentarily independent from Matter and details and are justified in Gross approximations and translations of all into pure mathematical entities...

[Amorphos]

Unless we are on the Outside looking In: we are outside of the Universe looking inside of it from Nowhere, or from a Platonic, Logical World or from a pure Information Relationship world: We are a momentary lapse of dependency on Matter, we are momentarily independent from Matter and details and are justified in Gross approximations and translations of all into pure mathematical entities...

Unless? So you roughly agree then.

I assume you mean that the observer is looking in, hence gains only a secondary interpretation of what’s ‘in’ or ‘there’ ~ or something like that.

[James S Saint]

The "Identity Principle" says nothing about anything being equal to anything else. That would an Equation.

The "Identity Principle (Law)" merely states that "by any other name/label (such as "A" or "B") a thing is still identical to whatever it is".
It merely states that "It is whatever it is" regardless of what you call it.

[Amorphos]

It merely states that "It is whatever it is" regardless of what you call it.

What is what it is?

The description of a thing is as false as the thing it attempts to describe.

[James S Saint]

It merely states that "It is whatever it is" regardless of what you call it.

What is what it is?

The description of a thing is as false as the thing it attempts to describe.

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?

[Philosopher8659]

Identity Principle ?

I have issues with the Identity Principle,

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.

[James S Saint]

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

Exactly.

(that makes 2)

[Amorphos]

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?

Because there is no "XYZ", you have just called it that. Its an imaginary term for a reality that can never be entire [or otherwise absolute] and hence not true in and of itself. That is to say; ‘what is partial is not true’ where we can supplement true for real if you like.

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?

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

edit; Certainly when you make the connection between any two things as in; ‘XYZ ≡ RST [identically equal]’, you have already added a third factor [the connection] and ascribed equal labels to both, when any description would at least put them in different spatial locations as compared to one another and their environment. Otherwise we are simply naming the same thing twice?


_

[Philosopher8659]

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.

[James S Saint]

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?

Because there is no "XYZ", you have just called it that. Its an imaginary term for a reality that can never be entire [or otherwise absolute] and hence not true in and of itself.

Bull.
I can name anything as any name I like. The name has nothing to do with the object being named other than acting as a reference word. There is no "imaginary thing" that I am equating anything to. I have merely given a name to whatever was there. There is no wrong to it unless I infer that the same name also is used to describe something else that is different. That would constitute an equivocation error.

That is to say; ‘what is partial is not true’ where we can supplement true for real if you like.

What is "partial" IS true, but not complete. No one said that the item was ONLY an averaged box or dog.

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?

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

I disagree, my description was exactly 100% accurate.
So point out where you think my description was in error.
In what way is the item NOT an XYZ or an RST?

Otherwise we are simply naming the same thing twice?

That is exactly what we ARE doing. THAT is the whole point to the Identity Principle. It is ONLY talking about ONE thing at a time.

[Philosopher8659]

"Identity Principle" is a grammatical abomination. Where is the philosophy forum anyway?

[Innovice]

to perceive requires time

but time itself is a difference in perceptions

thus an entity is not itself

for multiple reasons..

'to be' perhaps requires the passing of time

and the comparison of 'an entity' and 'itself' requires time to comprehend, thereby pointing out the difference

i love it when arguments go here.. or start here

i think it begins to touch upon something more profound

time

a topic that no one will likely convince me he/she fully understands

a topic that i don't understand yet want to understand more

[Mr Reasonable]

OP no two things can be in the same place at the same time, and the place and time in which a thing is, is a property of that thing, so no two things can share that property. I get that.

But, to say that this means you can't have a law of identity means that you're saying that every other property of those two objects can be identical, but if those aren't then the objects aren't identical so there can be no law of identity ignores the fact that you've made proper identifications the other 99.999% of the time.

Science just deals in corelations, so it's ok if we just rule out this one property, things can't really be absolute anyway.

There's 2 great papers, by David Kellogg Lewis on this stuff that I find interesting. One is called, "an argument for identity theory", and the other, "elusive knowledge", which is about the times when certain kinds of skepticism can be properly ignored.

[James S Saint]

Geez, how many times does this have to be said;

In logic, the law of identity is the first of the so-called three classic laws of thought. It states that an object is the same as itself: A → A (if you have A, then you have A); While this can also be listed as A ≡ A (A if-and-only-if A,) this is redundant.[1] Any reflexive relation upholds the law of identity. When discussing equality, the fact that "A is A" is a tautology.

THERE ARE NOT TWO OBJECTS INVOLVED.

[Faust]

There's a bigger problem than that, James. Whatever you want to call it - a law, a principle, a rule of thumb - it has absolutely no use in logic, or in philosophy, for that matter. It's just something that Aristotle came up with and that people have liked to refer to over the years. Something closer to what Smears mentions is of some use - and it is often called the same thing. It's usually just called "equivalence". I don't know who wrote the Wiki article, but I wouldn't leave home and family to study logic under him.

[nameta9]

"OP no two things can be in the same place at the same time,"

Not exactly: Nothing at all (no ONE thing) can be in the same place and at the same time because time is always flowing and the thing is always changing position.

"THERE ARE NOT TWO OBJECTS INVOLVED."

There is not even ONE object involved since you cannot pinpoint it down in time and space to infinite precision.

But, the very fact that we can use these approximate principles means that we somehow "format" reality, we "translate it" we "decode it" into something else, we "Digitize it" into some kinds of ONEs and ZEROS and act upon it. How can we, when if we are made up of matter and matter itself doesn't even contain ONE entity that can possible exist and is the same to itself ?

We are some gadget looking at the world from Outside of it, we are in some abstract world, we are outside of the universe looking in and formatting it according to our Man Brain. And it works for us and it is ok, and all is well, we don't need precision.

But the real properties of the world and universe, by denying the very possibility of the Identity Principle deny the possibility of any possible logic and non contradiction, hence the Universe is totally contradictory and totally incomprehensible, is totally disjoint from us, a total absolute unknown, has nothing at all to do with us, zero relationship with us, we are aliens here...

Of course, we will keep on using logic and mathematics and physics and such because it works and it is "good enough" for our uses, etc. But something is deeply wrong with our Man Brain, hence design a new one, create a new Man brain that operates on pure contradiction and kills all logic and Identity Principles and Non Contradiction...(granted, not an easy task... maybe an impossible task ?).

[James S Saint]

There's a bigger problem than that, James. Whatever you want to call it - a law, a principle, a rule of thumb - it has absolutely no use in logic, or in philosophy, for that matter. It's just something that Aristotle came up with and that people have liked to refer to over the years. Something closer to what Smears mentions is of some use - and it is often called the same thing. It's usually just called "equivalence". I don't know who wrote the Wiki article, but I wouldn't leave home and family to study logic under him.

Haha.. you have more than proven that you are hardly a source for such.

[James S Saint]

(granted, not an easy task... maybe an impossible task ?).

Exactly.

[Mr Reasonable]

There's a bigger problem than that, James. Whatever you want to call it - a law, a principle, a rule of thumb - it has absolutely no use in logic, or in philosophy, for that matter. It's just something that Aristotle came up with and that people have liked to refer to over the years. Something closer to what Smears mentions is of some use - and it is often called the same thing. It's usually just called "equivalence". I don't know who wrote the Wiki article, but I wouldn't leave home and family to study logic under him.

Haha.. you have more than proven that you are hardly a source for such.

You don't think that guy knows some logic? He's actually pretty well versed.

[James S Saint]

You don't think that guy knows some logic? He's actually pretty well versed.

Bull.
I have discussed it with him. He STILL can't even define logic after it was spelled out for him (never mind his serious inability to use it). The thesis he pasted is impressive and stands for a lot of work. I was first impressed too, but after talking to him, I discovered his complete lack of understanding of what he posted. It is a cut-n-paste thesis like a teacher gets in grammar school.

To Faust "logic == valid reasoning"
And of course, "valid == sound logic"

In short, "logic is whatever logic declares valid" or simply, "whatever we say is right". { = no fucking idea}
It's embarrassing and insulting.

[nameta9]

From:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=174921&start=25

A = not A. That is the question. That is a "contradictory universe". Where does this exist, how does this exist ? It does exist, but it doesn't "do" anything. That is the point, it is in a metaphysical dimension of no activity, no further actions, no further relationships, it needs no other relationships, there are no further elaborations, no other interactions of this state of "existence" or "being" than itself. You are not going to use it to reach other new relationships, you can't use it in any sense at all, because using it means plugging it in some kind of language, logic, some kind of "progression" towards something else, but it already contains, within itself, all that it needs since it doesn't need anything else, it is total, totalizing and finished.

It especially has no relationship with "us", with our mind, there is nothing we can do with it, there is no kinds of "Intentionality of Use" that we can apply to it. This is real metaphysics, real philosophy, that for which there is no further use, no further relationship, except these words or similar that describe vaguely how it relates to what we already know. All of our science, language, thoughts and memory are relationships defined according to what we already know, are new elaborations in an already given solution space, and these new elaborations and calculations bring on further new ones or apparently new ones, expanding the solution space as in the "progress of science and knowledge and the insertion of new bits in memory as a result", that are "used" to generate others, in a "process", a cycle.

But metaphysics is still, static, is frozen, doesn't progress. Like when we stop to think about time, it is a constant present moment that divides that past from the future, but it isn't the past or the future and the moment is fleeting, is intractable. These kinds of problems have no solution, these problems are absolutely new every time you look at them, there is no possible solution to this equation, there is no possible "progress" as is understood in terms of logic and science that can be applied to this, it will be always the same whether we look at it at 5 years old or after a trillion times, at 100 years old. There is nothing we can "do" with this problem, no further possible "understanding" by meditating upon it. And indeed metaphysics and philosophy at this level also has no social use, no one can help you on this one, you are alone with this, your mind is alone with this thought and no amount of social interaction, of "communication" will change this. And in fact real philosophy has no need to be communicated, has no use, has no social meaning, has no logical use whatsoever, it is simply the mind looking at impossible problems, taking a glimpse in a new universe of metaphysical platonic monolithic slabs of crashed mental "computer programs".

Most problems in philosophy are completely new every time you look at them, no matter how many times you already looked at them, this is because the nature of these problems and the way our mind reacts to them is always like the first time, we repeat forever the same awe and feel the same distance from these problems, there is no possible progress in philosophy, it is always repeated the same and often, even the more you look at these problems "the newer they become", the further you get from solutions, the worse it gets. All of our normal everyday logic goes out of the window when thinking about a "contradictory universe", "time", "existence" and other similars, the difference with everyday concepts, with science or even mathematics and physics is astounding, the problem of "existence" is so general and abstract, that all other problems become puny, irrelevant, for little boys.

Like the concept of "existence". This is also a monolithic slab, for anything to "exist", "existence" itself must already exist, but exactly where, in what way is something real, does something exist, is something true ? No solution, the further you think about it, the worst it gets, reverse progress, another characteristic of philosophy is that the more you "work" on problems the further you get away from any solutions, a concept or problem must simply be perceived, stated, and left alone, and your mind can simply wander, don't use logic, it is useless, counterproductive.

One last thing, instead of "A = not A", write, "= A not =". What is = ? How can this be ? It is, but it is another monolithic slab. Write others, invent other concepts they are all real, what is the square root of the square root without applying it to numbers ? That is metaphysics, that is where things really exist.

The structure of existence, if something is true it must exist in all time and in all points in space simultaneously, otherwise there is a place where it isn't. So if we are alive and what we see is true, then we must be alive in all time and for all points in space otherwise (but we were dead, and will be dead, and we are not walking on mars)... and we must be concentrating on the same information the same Information Relationship, Reciprocal Information Interactions and Reciprocal Mass - Energy - Matter Interactions, but if there are other Reciprocal Information Relationships, what makes the previous one still exist ? Memory ? But if you think of the previous one you lose the present one, so what gives ? We are contradiction, we are without any solution.

In theoretical physics, the most abstract theory of new universes has the same distance in our mind to the most concrete theory, they are all denotations, just Reciprocal Information Relationships, some are associated to measurements that somehow confirm the "reality" of the theory, but in all truth, they are all real, only some can be translated into some other language where instrumental manipulations can be used. But this begs the question, since we always essentially just talk to ourselves, we probably can invent a new instrumental relationship, and lie to ourselves and make any theory truth.

Reality couldn't have been based but on Quantum Theory, it couldn't have been any different, there is no way that an electron circling an atom could have been a rigid ball with an infinitely precise size, a monolithic slab, otherwise the world would have been completely deterministic and completely tractable and predictable, the three body problem exactly solvable (but there is an abstract universe where this is true, that abstract universe exists and is real just as much as ours given the nature of "existence").

But reality exists exactly because the laws of physics don't exist in some points of space, the probabilistic, quantum nature of reality reflects this, it is the non existence of any patterns and laws that make the existence of the patterns and laws of physics real. Just like philosophy states that something exists only because it exists in the background of its opposite.

Reality is the subtle string of the lack of the laws of physics that gives the laws of physics their reality.

[Amorphos]

A = not A. That is the question.
One last thing, instead of "A = not A", write, "= A not =". What is = ? How can this be ? It is, but it is another monolithic slab.

Indeed, there is no equivalence between description/things. But one would think that if something contained information about itself and we could read that, then there would be an equivalence between description/things.

Point being that things don’t contain informations about themselves I.e. as an exact description about what they are, hence A is not A. all we get is representative information about things I.e. in metaphysical terms ~ beyond our descriptions.

This is - if I may because there are no ‘things’, no exact objects, so the information they may contain pertains to changing states hence is never exacting.


We have;
changing states
Relative states
Informational relationships between a former and new state of a thing.

Informations about objects is thus concerned with multiples which then relate to further sets, the whole thing being in constant flux.

btw, I am not speaking about info in terms of language.

[nameta9]

From:

http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/02/all-sc ... honor.html

"Travel, like so many things life allows us in the modern age, is mostly like Andy Warhol's description of sex ... "The biggest nothing of all time". "

And, conversely, Pain is the Smallest Nothing Ever that can become the Biggest Something Ever...


Actually, I will extend that:

The Smallest Nothing Ever Can Become the Biggest Something Ever...

The Biggest Something Ever Can Become the Smallest Nothing Ever...

The Smallest Nothing Ever Is the Biggest Something Ever...

The Biggest Something Ever Is the Smallest Nothing Ever...