The Law of Identity

[Scott Mayers]

Okay, I think I covered all your responses above in this post.

↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:57 am
The universal agreement about logic is between people.

I am not on-board with that idea. If identity/lnc are the laws of THOUGHT, and I use logic to think then I am certainly not going to negotiate/agree with you on how *I* should think. That is none of your business.

We can negotiate language, values, goals and objectives, culture etc.. But my mind is off-limits to you. I don't negotiate with that which is priceless to me.

The laws of logic/thought are not dictating 'laws', they are expressing agreement in formal communications that involve proof or to express the reasoning of something. Maybe you have a bad connotation of the word, "law"?

For a 'proof', you have the premises, as one set of symbols, and a conclusion, that acts as its own symbol.

The law says we agree that to prove something, we need a set of inputs such that IF we agree to the truth of them, the conclusion MUST be agreed to be "true" to be a logically valid statement.

It doesn't dictate that we HAVE to agree because it is a conditional. The agreement between us must be conditioned upon both sides and why that law is a 'bi-conditional' statement that says that if we are going to debate, argue, prove, or construct some computer system, etc, we need to make the mechanism of reasoning (the logic) FIT to each other's expectation.

You can design a hand-calculator that serves only those conditionally wanting to use it for some purpose. But the design's function has to map onto the utility of the person using that tool. This is true about all logical constructs. It is a truth about the CONDITIONAL agreement between people, not to what is only conditionally 'true' of ones' own mind. I could be agreeing to use a symbol that you refuse to allow me to assign. Then we cannot agree. But I could be the party actually being fair when you refuse to ALLOW me to present a symbol that maps to some reality simply because you refuse the reality itself. As such, you're taking the power of the conditional agreement away, like a tyrant who dislikes his servant's even speaking at all to them. Thus the tyrant would be denying the servant a right to SYMBOLIZE anything to agree or disagree to by force of authority alone.

The laws are an 'objective' agreement to reason without literal force to compel one or the other to some conclusion. The idea is to let the logic stand on its own without bias to either party.

↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:57 am
You can't use a higher order language to dictate what is true of all other languages.

And yet that's exactly what I am doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... 0_grammars

Type-0 grammars include ALL formal grammars. They generate exactly all languages that can be recognized by a Turing machine.

See you are not even understanding that Chomsky and Turing accepted the three laws you have contention with here!!

[You also falsely assume that the "Turing machines" are 'all machines'. They are HIS specific artistic models to visualize the logic he is expressing about more complex ones ...assuming his own is at least of the agreed three laws about all logic. I put this in braces because it is a distraction that has no relevance to the meta-laws of thought needed to discuss anything. Both Turing and Chompski were supporters of the traditional three laws at minimal.]

What does communication have to do with the laws of THOUGHT?
What does agreement between two people have to do with THOUGHT?

90% of the time people can't understand what I am saying and disagree with me because they don't have my technical background.
Does that mean we aren't following the law of identity then?

Who isn't? Me or the person who doesn't understand?

What our understanding is evidence of is that we have agreed on the common USE of language.
It says NOTHING about our agreement on the common rules for THOUGHT. And it should be patently obvious that most people on this forum don't think like I do.

If anything - I object to the notion of "rules" when it comes to reasoning! Rules (axioms) are false authorities! Made up Gods.

If we can agree that thought (computation/reason) can be distinct from language (communication, self-expression) then there is no need to re-visit.

Identity is the law of THOUGHT, and therefore I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with inter-subjective consensus.

To speak of identity in the context of language is a mistake.

Identity is about the observer <-> observed relationship.

You appear to be stealing my own argument's perspective, at least in part. You only disagree with the way people of the past used the word, "thought", and/or "law" here. "Thought" is equivalent in jest by the original writers to mean, "expression FROM our minds", versus using our muscles to do other activities. "Logic" is a thought concept and the choice in context referred to how the nature of our subjective minds require having something true most universally to nature apart from our literal physical processes. They distinguished thinking activities like discussion and debate as distinct from all other real activities humans can do.

[Logik]

The laws of logic/thought are not dictating 'laws', they are expressing agreement in formal communications that involve proof or to express the reasoning of something. Maybe you have a bad connotation of the word, "law"?

You are still conflating thought with communication.

For a 'proof', you have the premises, as one set of symbols, and a conclusion, that acts as its own symbol.

Your conception of a "proof" is misaligned to mine. By Curry-Howard isomorphism - proofs compute.
Something stated in formal logic, or mathematics is not a proof. That you can evaluate formal logic is not proof of anything.

Formal logic (when used inter-subjectively) is just another language.

Proofs compute. They evolve over time.

The law says we agree that to prove something, we need a set of inputs such that IF we agree to the truth of them, the conclusion MUST be agreed to be "true" to be a logically valid statement.

No. Sorry. Conceptual mis-alignment. "proofs" and "truth" are properties of the logic-system.

When you speak of "agreement" you are talking about inter-subjectivity.

It doesn't dictate that we HAVE to agree because it is a conditional. The agreement between us must be conditioned upon both sides and why that law is a 'bi-conditional' statement that says that if we are going to debate, argue, prove, or construct some computer system, etc, we need to make the mechanism of reasoning (the logic) FIT to each other's expectation.

OK, but such agreements are arbitrary and they can be handled on ad-hoc basis and during the process of communication itself.
We do NOT need to lay down universal rules for this. We can re-define words, re-shape them. Use them literally, metaphorically.
Human communication does not follow a Mathematical protocol

The laws are an 'objective' agreement to reason without literal force to compel one or the other to some conclusion. The idea is to let the logic stand on its own without bias to either party.

Something that is subject to opt-out (choice) is not a law.

See you are not even understanding that Chomsky and Turing accepted the three laws you have contention with here!!

If you insist that to be the case then your law is a truism and anything I say is confirmation bias for you.
What would you consider as evidence against it?

[You also falsely assume that the "Turing machines" are 'all machines'. They are HIS specific artistic models to visualize the logic he is expressing about more complex ones ...assuming his own is at least of the agreed three laws about all logic. I put this in braces because it is a distraction that has no relevance to the meta-laws of thought needed to discuss anything. Both Turing and Chompski were supporters of the traditional three laws at minimal.]

I am only using Turing machines as the concrete example of an abstract concept. The concept of computation exists outside the particular notion of any machine. The CONCEPT of computation can be described in the LANGUAGE of Mathematics (Lambda calculus). But the CONCEPT of computation is PRIOR to any language.

Computation is self-reference. Computation is the mind referring to itself.

You appear to be stealing my own argument's perspective, at least in part. You only disagree with the way people of the past used the word, "thought", and/or "law" here. "Thought" is equivalent in jest by the original writers to mean, "expression FROM our minds", versus using our muscles to do other activities. "Logic" is a thought concept and the choice in context referred to how the nature of our subjective minds require having something true most universally to nature apart from our literal physical processes. They distinguished thinking activities like discussion and debate as distinct from all other real activities humans can do.

Naturally you would say that. Because your conception of the "law of identity" is a truism.

You have conceptualized the "law" of identity as unfalsifiable.

If it swims it's a duck. If it doesn't swim - it's also a duck.

[Speakpigeon]

Then I don't know what else this Law of Identity is supposed to be about. Things are themselves, not something else, which is 100% obvious, self-evident, isn't this the "law"?

I'm sure it's obvious but the question is as to you think the Law means to all of us.
EB

You mean to most of us. What I wrote is what I think it means to most of us, but you seem to disagree, that's why I ask.

I disagreed with you explanation bit I also justified the fact that I disagreed:

It's not because you make sure you're not equivocating that any object A is itself. The object A, like any other thing, abstract or not, will be itself irrespective of whether we equivocate when referring to it.

So, what's wrong with my justification?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Do you understand? Do you AGREE? (if not, we can't get to any resolution no matter what each of us says)

You haven't addressed my question: If you think it's just a rule against equivocation, please name one thing that is not itself.
EB

[Logik]

You haven't addressed my question: If you think it's just a rule against equivocation, please name one thing that is not itself.
EB

2nd time now. Any wave particle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

But I can go on. Gravity. Wind. Earthquakes. Do you want me to continue with phenomenology?

Whatever it means to be "itself" our linguistic descriptions of the thing are incomplete.

Any epistemic phenomenon where we are dealing with uncertainty (which is basically all of them).

The thing is the thing, it is whatever it is. Whatever we say about it is incomplete - it's just language.

[commonsense]

Tempest in a teacup!

All we have here may be summed up as fuzzy logic. We cannot know whether X = X is true or false until we have accessed, assessed or examined X. Think Schroeder’s cat.

[Atla]

I disagreed with you explanation bit I also justified the fact that I disagreed:

It's not because you make sure you're not equivocating that any object A is itself. The object A, like any other thing, abstract or not, will be itself irrespective of whether we equivocate when referring to it.

So, what's wrong with my justification?
EB

I can't make sense of these sentences. I don't think I addressed equivocation when referring to an object.

Yes object A abstract or not, will be itself. And if we talk about two different abstract A objects, then both are themselves.

[Speakpigeon]

Tempest in a teacup!

All we have here may be summed up as fuzzy logic. We cannot know whether X = X is true or false until we have accessed, assessed or examined X. Think Schroeder’s cat.

I didn't ask for how to prove that the Law of Identity is correct.
I asked for what you think it means to most people.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

I disagreed with you explanation bit I also justified the fact that I disagreed:

It's not because you make sure you're not equivocating that any object A is itself. The object A, like any other thing, abstract or not, will be itself irrespective of whether we equivocate when referring to it.

So, what's wrong with my justification?
EB

I can't make sense of these sentences. I don't think I addressed equivocation when referring to an object.

Yes object A abstract or not, will be itself. And if we talk about two different abstract A objects, then both are themselves.

Isn't it the case that we take something to be itself even before we get to talk about it and certainly irrespective of how we talk about it?
EB

[Atla]

I disagreed with you explanation bit I also justified the fact that I disagreed:

So, what's wrong with my justification?
EB

I can't make sense of these sentences. I don't think I addressed equivocation when referring to an object.

Yes object A abstract or not, will be itself. And if we talk about two different abstract A objects, then both are themselves.

Isn't it the case that we take something to be itself even before we get to talk about it and certainly irrespective of how we talk about it?
EB

Yes, and I think that's what most people mean by the Law of identity. (Which is why I'm curious about what else you think there is to discuss about it?)

[Logik]

Isn't it the case that we take something to be itself even before we get to talk about it and certainly irrespective of how we talk about it?
EB

What would the implication be if the thing wasn't "itself"?

[Scott Mayers]

@logik,

I don't know what you are agreeing nor disagreeing with me about now. I ask that you DEFINE your terms because you are flipping meanings constantly in context and denying that I know what I'm talking about here. If you have a contention with the word, "law" or "identity", take it up with the original authors who used those terms.

What is your THESIS (or antithesis) about logic? Specifically state what you are for or against. If you state some beef against something you call, 'classical', define that term by also contrasting to what it is not in your understanding.

@logik and Speakpigeon,

What are the words, "identical", "identity", and "identification" mean to you and what are the differences in these?

Do you or do you not interpret the "law of identity" to be about consistency?

It would be very ideal if you both could remove ALL prior past people's references of authors, their works, nor use of specific languages BY other people to prove precisely what you yourself actually know and mean. Reinvent the concept of what you deem is or is not "logic" as though you no one ever heard of it so that you can prove what you mean. For logik, this means if you want to use Lambda Calculus or Python, spell out the language's logic, their own postulates and theorems to show what you know of these.

My own background is in logic, intensely. I don't claim to know all the variants nor require to. But I understand the details of Propositional Calculus, Predicate Calculus, and Set theory. I understand Boolean algebra and lots of computer logic. [I CAN design a computer ground up.] I understand Turing's first paper (as I've linked it to you), I know much about Bertrand Russell's actual works to which Godel was challenging, etc. As to computing, I understand 'C' language, Basic (original), Pascal, Assembly languages (Intel/Arm/MIPPS) [including Turing machines as well as to reconstructing my own], have created my own logic minimizer/maximizer (used to express and manipulate logic to be used in the design the electronics representation of any computer). I understand the physics, chemistry and electronics involved. And I even have a fair depth of understanding of the biological factors for neurons, genetics and evolutionary theory. [And this is only some of the things I've studied relevant to logic.]

While I'm not complete with these studies, and miss ALL the variant ways of expressing the limitation theorems, (like not investing in Lambda Calculus, for one), I do have a good grasp of the topic.

I am at a loss trying to figure out how either of you have a contention with something so intrinsically basic to reasoning itself.

So once again I ask you to define the terms, "law" and "identity". I also need to know what you know of "definitions" as these are also rudimentary to philosophical analysis and logic.

BEGIN here: Law of Identity (Wikipedia). What does the following MEAN to you?

In logic, the law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself. It is the first of the three laws of thought, along with the law of noncontradiction, and the law of excluded middle. However, no system of logic is built on just these laws, and none of these laws provide inference rules, such as modus ponens or DeMorgan's Laws.

In its formal representation, the law of identity is written "a = a" or "For all x: x = x", where a or x refer to a term rather than a proposition, and thus the law of identity is not used in propositional logic. It is that which is expressed by the equals sign "=", the notion of identity or equality. It can also be written less formally as A is A. One statement of such a principle is "Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose."

In logical discourse, violations of the law of identity result in the informal logical fallacy known as equivocation.[1] That is to say, we cannot use the same term in the same discourse while having it signify different senses or meanings and introducing ambiguity into the discourse – even though the different meanings are conventionally prescribed to that term. The law of identity also allows for substitution, and is a tautology.

[Scott Mayers]

Do you understand? Do you AGREE? (if not, we can't get to any resolution no matter what each of us says)

You haven't addressed my question: If you think it's just a rule against equivocation, please name one thing that is not itself.
EB

I did NOT assert that equivocation is the ONLY means for the law. I didn't even use the term "equivocation" because I am uncertain how you may interpret that word, something that would only take us down another rabbit trail should I use another word of contention beyond "law" and "identity" that you seem to be unable to share in common agreement. I gave an example of how human activities, like humor, is outside the range of necessity to use the law of identity. We only use the law of identity as a prerequisite part of reasoning formally. It is an apriori assumption of reasoning. It conditionally DEFINES what is needed for something to be considered, "logical".

Begin by looking at my last post above that is in general to you and logik. At the end of it I pointed to the Wikipedia page that we might be able to use to argue from. I don't know what you guys have a contention with if I can't be sure you understand what the justification for the laws were about.

[Logik]

I don't know what you are agreeing nor disagreeing with me about now. I ask that you DEFINE your terms because you are flipping meanings constantly in context and denying that I know what I'm talking about here. If you have a contention with the word, "law" or "identity", take it up with the original authors who used those terms.

In context? You haven't provided any context.. You are talking in broad strokes and in general. I don't use language like that.

In general - I have nothing to say about anything. Generally generalities are meaningless. That's why my philosophy is anti-philosophical.

What are the words, "identical", "identity", and "identification" mean to you and what are the differences in these?

In general - nothing. In particular - depends on the context.

Do you or do you not interpret the "law of identity" to be about consistency?

No. It's about avoiding equivocation. It's about maintaining a taxonomy within a context.

I am at a loss trying to figure out how either of you have a contention with something so intrinsically basic to reasoning itself.

I have no contention with reasoning. I have a contention paying lip service to it.

So once again I ask you to define the terms, "law" and "identity".

And once again I am asking you: to what end?

Lets not define it. And then what happens? Nothing? Then why debate it or define it?

It's inconsequential.

[commonsense]

Tempest in a teacup!

All we have here may be summed up as fuzzy logic. We cannot know whether X = X is true or false until we have accessed, assessed or examined X. Think Schroeder’s cat.

I didn't ask for how to prove that the Law of Identity is correct.
I asked for what you think it means to most people.
EB

Mea culpa.

I think that to most people the Law of Identity means a thing is a thing, a thing is a unique thing, and a thing is nothing else but itself.

I also think that most of the lay population conflates identity with equality.

BTW, I wonder if you saw my joke.