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.
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...
It merely states that "It is whatever it is" regardless of what you call it.
quetzalcoatl wrote: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.
nameta9 wrote:Identity Principle ?
I have issues with the Identity Principle,
Philosopher8659 wrote:One can either use them in construction, or one cannot actually think at all.
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?
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?
quetzalcoatl wrote:Because either description can never be exact, and the thing it describes can never be exact, hence its always going to be wrong.
_
quetzalcoatl wrote: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.
quetzalcoatl wrote:That is to say; ‘what is partial is not true’ where we can supplement true for real if you like.
quetzalcoatl wrote: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.
quetzalcoatl wrote:Otherwise we are simply naming the same thing twice?
Wiki wrote: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.
Faust wrote: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 wrote:(granted, not an easy task... maybe an impossible task ?).
James S Saint wrote:Faust wrote: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.
Smears wrote:You don't think that guy knows some logic? He's actually pretty well versed.
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.
Users browsing this forum: Jakeyjake