Information is fundamental to cognition

[Age]

So X = Х is True?

Not necessarily so.

So if X = X is neither true nor false, what is it then?

Give us a word.

That is up to you. Absolutely everything is relative to the observer.

You said, and asked; OK, do I have two different Xs?

I said; Obviously the X's are different. Can you NOT see that?

Then, from that, you moved onto X = X being either true or false, for some reason.

[Logik]

That is up to you. Absolutely everything is relative to the observer.

OK, but there are TWO observers.

There is you and there is me. Age and Logik.

You said, and asked; OK, do I have two different Xs?

I said; Obviously the X's are different. Can you NOT see that?

Then, from that, you moved onto X = X being either true or false, for some reason.

Yes! Because if two observers can agree on the value of X = X - you know what that's called?

Consensus.

If Logik and Age agree that "x = x is true" OR that "x = x is false" OR that "x = x is Monkey" or that "x = x is 42".

Then Logik and Age have established some Truth among themselves.

[Age]

That is up to you. Absolutely everything is relative to the observer.

OK, but there are TWO observers.

There is you and there is me. Age and Logik.

You said, and asked; OK, do I have two different Xs?

I said; Obviously the X's are different. Can you NOT see that?

Then, from that, you moved onto X = X being either true or false, for some reason.

Yes! Because if two observers can agree on the value of X = X - you know what that's called?

Consensus.

If Logik and Age agree that "x = x is true" OR that "x = x is false" OR that "x = x is Monkey" or that "x = x is 42".

Then Logik and Age have established some Truth among themselves.

Well, you asked a question. I answered it. I then asked you a question. You did not and still have not answer it. If you had, then we might have ALREADY had consensus. And, thus Truth among ourselves.

[Logik]

X = X
IF the "X's" are the same THEN the above is true.
IF the "X's" are different THEN the above is false.

Which one is it? True or false?

Obviously the X's are different. Can you NOT see that?

So X = X is false ?

No.

So X = Х is True?

Not necessarily so.

So if X = X is neither true nor false, what is it then?

Give us a word.

To sum this up.

IF the "X's" are different THEN the above is false.

Obviously the X's are different. Can you NOT see that?

Therefore X = X is FALSE....

Not necessarily so.

Herding contrarians and sophist sure is a strange hobby!

[surreptitious57]

There are three things

There is the rose : A
There is the photo of the rose : roseA
There is another photo of the rose : roseB

There were only two things in the OP so that is the number you should stick to
Introducing another one only makes it complicated and unnecessarily so as well

[commonsense]

So X = Х is True?

Not necessarily so.

So if X = X is neither true nor false, what is it then?

Give us a word.

Maybe the word is assignment, not exactly unlike the following:

The variable “x” is assigned the value of the expression “x is neither true nor false”.

So the meta-statement would be:

x = (x = True or x = False)

In that case it is obvious that the meta-statement is always true by virtue of the law of the excluded middle.

Furthermore, the meta-statement is also true if:

True = (is the same as) False

or

True = (is assigned the value of) False

The word is assignment.

[Arising_uk]

If you're saying that those two pictures are the same jpeg with the same timestamp then yes they are the same but if not then no they are not.

[Logik]

If you're saying that those two pictures are the same jpeg with the same timestamp then yes they are the same but if not then no they are not.

The point of science is to find ways (strategies) to answer such question. Find ways to juxtapose things which are (otherwise) beyond our senses.

Determine If there exists a method to answer the question. Indeed - there is. SHA512 checksums.

From something nay-impossible to detect with your bare eyes, it becomes something so obvious that you can't ignore.

You have to know how to leverage/extract information...

[Arising_uk]

Or you could post one picture and ask is that picture that picture. Now there's been lots said in Philosophy about 'is' being a predicate or not but the tautology holds and whilst not very useful for the contingents I tend to agree with Wittgenstein that they set one of the boundaries for language and Reason. After all predl provided the ground for subsets such as intuitionistic logic, et al, much like Euclid's geometry so horses for courses I think.

[Logik]

Or you could post one picture and ask is that picture that picture. Now there's been lots said in Philosophy about 'is' being a predicate or not but the tautology holds and whilst not very useful for the contingents I tend to agree with Wittgenstein that they set one of the boundaries for language and Reason. After all predl provided the ground for subsets such as intuitionistic logic, et al, much like Euclid's geometry so horses for courses I think.

The point is to understand how the concept of "information" and "difference" are intertwined.

If philosophy is a running commentary for science, then Deleuzian philosophy is on-par. Change and difference.
Those are the fundamentals.

Is A different to B?
How do A and B change in respect to time?

Difference between A and B == information.

[Logik]

There are three things

There is the rose : A
There is the photo of the rose : roseA
There is another photo of the rose : roseB

There were only two things in the OP so that is the number you should stick to
Introducing another one only makes it complicated and unnecessarily so as well

Tunnel vision. The rose (of which the photo was taken) is still out there. In the universe.

[Logik]

Not necessarily so.

So if X = X is neither true nor false, what is it then?

Give us a word.

Maybe the word is assignment, not exactly unlike the following:

The variable “x” is assigned the value of the expression “x is neither true nor false”.

In the context of programming, sure, but I am merely using "=" because people aren't programmers and they understand "=" in its comparative sense.
Since you understand the difference treat "=" as "==".

The point I was making was in context of this

IF the "X's" are the same THEN the above is true.
IF the "X's" are different THEN the above is false.

IF X = X is neither true or false it's the same as saying "when we compare X to X it is neither same nor different"

I am looking for a word or a phrase that means "neither the same nor different".

The words "confused" and "indecisive" comes to mind.

[commonsense]

So if X = X is neither true nor false, what is it then?

Give us a word.

Maybe the word is assignment, not exactly unlike the following:

The variable “x” is assigned the value of the expression “x is neither true nor false”.

In the context of programming, sure, but I am merely using "=" because people aren't programmers and they understand "=" in its comparative sense.
Since you understand the difference treat "=" as "==".

The point I was making was in context of this

IF the "X's" are the same THEN the above is true.
IF the "X's" are different THEN the above is false.

IF X = X is neither true or false it's the same as saying "when we compare X to X it is neither same nor different"

I am looking for a word or a phrase that means "neither the same nor different".

The words "confused" and "indecisive" comes to mind.

Thanks. I understand now.

In addition to "confused" and "indecisive" a host of alternate candidates comes to mind, such as:

"inconclusive"
"indifferent"
"medial"
"unknown"
"unrecognized"
"indistinguishable"
"inestimable"

...to name a few offhand.

[Eodnhoj7]

Here is an experiment to demonstrate how fundamental information (EVIDENCE!) is to human cognition and decision-making.

In English we ask the question: "Is this the same rose?"

This generates the following:

Hypothesis 1 (Yes): roseA = roseA => True
Hypothesis 2 (No): roseA = roseA => False

Please respond to the poll and then explain what process/procedure you used to determine the more plausible hypothesis.
Also (if you can) please state your certainty as to the correctness of your conclusion e.g how much probability do you assign to the follow-up hypothesis e.g that you may have made a mistake.

roseA.jpg
roseA.jpg

False dichotomy.

It is simultaneously the same and different rose.

Same as in repitition of symmetry, false as symmetry exists (due to time, reproduction and various other qualities) in variation. This variation exists as an extension of the base symmetry of the rose.

The answer is true and false.

Second the "more plausible" hypothesis, out of infinite hypothesis is a relativistic statement as what is "more plausible" is relative to both the agreement of the observer and the group of observer's.

[Logik]

False dichotomy.

It is simultaneously the same and different rose.

Same as in repitition of symmetry, false as symmetry exists (due to time, reproduction and various other qualities) in variation. This variation exists as an extension of the base symmetry of the rose.

The answer is true and false.

Second the "more plausible" hypothesis, out of infinite hypothesis is a relativistic statement as what is "more plausible" is relative to both the agreement of the observer and the group of observer's.

Then - is it the same pattern of information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

A pattern of information (or form) is the pattern or content of an instance or piece of information. Many separate pieces of information may share the same form. We can say that those pieces are perfectly correlated or say that they are copies of each other, as in copies of a book.