The Law of Identity

[Speakpigeon]

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

We're only talking about identity here.
Here are two sets of definitions:

Identity
a. The condition of being a certain person or thing.
b. The set of characteristics by which a person or thing is definitively recognizable or known.

Identity
1. the state of having unique identifying characteristics held by no other person or thing
2. the individual characteristics by which a person or thing is recognized.
8. Logic. an assertion that two terms refer to the same thing.

These are all good to me.
Identical just means having the same identity in the first sense or having the same identity in the second sense.

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

???
I'm not sure where that comes from. Consistency of what? Consistency of identity perhaps? Well, no, I don't think so.

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.

I don't see that I have any a priori about the Law of Identity. What matters to me is the empirical evidence of it, although this requires analysis rather than just looking at some particular thing as if it could talk.

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

Contention? Not me, no. I'm asking a fairly simple question and I think I have been explicit enough about what exactly I'm asking. Why should that suggest to you I have some contention against the Law of Identity?
I certainly find the usual perspective on it a bit lacking, but that's not directly a problem of the Law itself. Rather, it what people seem to understand of it which seems off to me.

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.

I generally start from the dictionary. I take a definition to be an explicitation of what the a word means to people, i.e. how the word is understood by people. I'm not sure how that would be particularly relevant here, though.
A law is generally understood as something universal or of a very broad application, while a rule will be more "localised" with a more limited application. The law applies similarly to all citizens. Physical laws applies consistently across the whole universe. Rules will be more specific to places, buildings, institutions, activities, compagnies etc.

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.

I'm not interested in the role that the Law of Identity has in logic. So, the Wiki article is somewhat irrelevant. I'm interested in the law itself and what it means for us.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Sure, but that's just what the law says. That's a bit... short.

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

OK, so what's the difference?

BTW, I wonder if you saw my joke.

If there was one, I missed it.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

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

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".

Sure, but that in itself doesn't tell us what the law means exactly.
EB

[commonsense]

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.

Sure, but that's just what the law says. That's a bit... short.

Yes, my answer was short and trivial (as is too often my tendency).

In my defense, the question I answered asked for my opinion regarding what the law meant to most people. Taking the words literally (as is always my trait and curse), I responded with what I guessed most people think about the Law of Identity. I honestly doubt that ordinary citizens consider the law in greater detail.

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

OK, so what's the difference?

Identity is sameness of the whole. Equality is sameness of the contents.

BTW, I wonder if you saw my joke.

If there was one, I missed it.
EB

Schroeder had a grand piano. Shrödinger (sp?) had a cat. Ha!

[Atla]

I generally start from the dictionary. I take a definition to be an explicitation of what the a word means to people, i.e. how the word is understood by people. I'm not sure how that would be particularly relevant here, though.
A law is generally understood as something universal or of a very broad application, while a rule will be more "localised" with a more limited application. The law applies similarly to all citizens. Physical laws applies consistently across the whole universe. Rules will be more specific to places, buildings, institutions, activities, compagnies etc.

Do you maybe see the "law" of identity as more than just a convention agreed upon by most people about how we should think? Maybe you see it as something kinda inherent to the universe?

[Logik]

Do you maybe see the "law" of identity as more than just a convention agreed upon by most people about how we should think? Maybe you see it as something kinda inherent to the universe?

Surely you are assuming too much? Thought is а solitary exercise. Communication is an inter-subjective exercise.

Feynman already observed that people's mental languages are vastly different. Even for something as trivial as "counting" people actually DO different things in their heads. Some count using their auditory systems, some count using their visual systems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y

I need not agree with anybody on HOW to think anymore than I have to agree with anybody on HOW to count.
As long as the results are not wrong HOW I obtain the answer is none of your business.

[Scott Mayers]

I'm not interested in the role that the Law of Identity has in logic. So, the Wiki article is somewhat irrelevant. I'm interested in the law itself and what it means for us.
EB

Oh. I've wasted my time here then. That was the ONLY meaning of the "law of identity" that I was aware of .

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, my answer was short and trivial (as is too often my tendency). In my defense, the question I answered asked for my opinion regarding what the law meant to most people. Taking the words literally (as is always my trait and curse), I responded with what I guessed most people think about the Law of Identity. I honestly doubt that ordinary citizens consider the law in greater detail.

I'm sure very few people ever think about it but I'm equally certain we all have this notion readily available to us without us having to make any effort. So, I was hoping I could make you do a little bit of introspective work.

Identity is sameness of the whole. Equality is sameness of the contents.

???
You mean, between the whole contents and the contents of the whole?
Is there a difference?

Schroeder had a grand piano. Shrödinger (sp?) had a cat. Ha!

I did assume you couldn't spell "Schrödinger" and it didn't occur to me than "Schroeder" was the name of a real person.
And I still don't get the joke...
EB

[Speakpigeon]

I generally start from the dictionary. I take a definition to be an explicitation of what the a word means to people, i.e. how the word is understood by people. I'm not sure how that would be particularly relevant here, though.
A law is generally understood as something universal or of a very broad application, while a rule will be more "localised" with a more limited application. The law applies similarly to all citizens. Physical laws applies consistently across the whole universe. Rules will be more specific to places, buildings, institutions, activities, compagnies etc.

Do you maybe see the "law" of identity as more than just a convention agreed upon by most people about how we should think? Maybe you see it as something kinda inherent to the universe?

Maybe so but it's also a fact that it not called a law for nothing. Logical truths, i.e. formulas that are true in all possible cases, are called in French "lois logique", i.e. logical laws. I think the term "law" suggests something more than just a convention. Rather it's something you can't deny, really nothing like a mere convention. On the other hand, there is no "law" stating something just as evident but even more crucial, i.e. that really exists. Why do we feel the need to assert the Law of Identity but not to assert the existence of reality?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

I'm not interested in the role that the Law of Identity has in logic. So, the Wiki article is somewhat irrelevant. I'm interested in the law itself and what it means for us.

Oh. I've wasted my time here then. That was the ONLY meaning of the "law of identity" that I was aware of .

Yet, I have been clear from the start...

This thread is motivated by a dispute about the Law of Identity in the Logic & Philosophy of mathematics forum. However, this thread is about the Law of Identity. It isn't a thread about logic itself. So, please, remember we don't care about logic per se here.
and leave the question of the logic of it to the other forum.

Maybe the treatment of the Law of identity in logic is relevant to our intuitive notion of the Law but you would have to explain why it is.
EB

[Atla]

Do you maybe see the "law" of identity as more than just a convention agreed upon by most people about how we should think? Maybe you see it as something kinda inherent to the universe?

Maybe so but it's also a fact that it not called a law for nothing. Logical truths, i.e. formulas that are true in all possible cases, are called in French "lois logique", i.e. logical laws. I think the term "law" suggests something more than just a convention. Rather it's something you can't deny, really nothing like a mere convention. On the other hand, there is no "law" stating something just as evident but even more crucial, i.e. that really exists. Why do we feel the need to assert the Law of Identity but not to assert the existence of reality?
EB

Well I think the law of identity is more like a convention. The English word "law" doesn't always refer to things inherent to the universe. (Just think of Murphy's law hehe or Moore's law.)

I think the law of identity is accepted and used by rather every sane person, without this we are insane and nothing ever makes any sense anymore, so one could also say that it's like a quasi-universal convention or a quasi-law.

But thinking is always subjective, varies from person to person, and varies throughout each person's lifetime. Laws of thought are not inherent to the universe, even if as far as we know every thing is objectively itself.

The existence of reality is inherent to everything, there is even less to assert there I think. I would call this an objective, universal law. (Which does break down at some point I think, in a certain sense, but that's very off-topic.)

[commonsense]

Yes, my answer was short and trivial (as is too often my tendency). In my defense, the question I answered asked for my opinion regarding what the law meant to most people. Taking the words literally (as is always my trait and curse), I responded with what I guessed most people think about the Law of Identity. I honestly doubt that ordinary citizens consider the law in greater detail.

I'm sure very few people ever think about it but I'm equally certain we all have this notion readily available to us without us having to make any effort. So, I was hoping I could make you do a little bit of introspective work.

I think the majority of all people think in very little detail about the Law of Identity whether they think about it always or simply have ready access to the notion of it. Ah! What does the Law of Identity mean to me? The Law of Identity is an instance of tautology.

A thing is identical to itself. Examined at different times, it is still identical to itself. Examined in different locations, it is still identical to itself.
A rose is a rose. A rose is a rose across time. A rose is a rose through space.
The petals on a rose are the petals on a rose. The petals are identical to themselves regardless of time or location.

Identity is sameness of the whole. Equality is sameness of the contents.

???
You mean, between the whole contents and the contents of the whole?
Is there a difference?

I mean the whole, per se, without consideration of its contents and the contents, per se, without consideration of the whole.

Let's say that you have a glass beaker containing a blue liquid. You are going to examine the beaker and the liquid before and after pouring 1/2 of the liquid out. The beaker is the same before and after the liquid is poured. The beaker is identical to itself before and after. The liquid is not the same before and after its pouring. It lacks the property of equality. Had you not poured any of the liquid out, it would have been equal to itself.

Schroeder had a grand piano. Shrödinger (sp?) had a cat. Ha!

I did assume you couldn't spell "Schrödinger" and it didn't occur to me than "Schroeder" was the name of a real person.
And I still don't get the joke...
EB

Schroeder is a piano-playing character in Charles Schultz's Peanuts cartoon. Schroeder/Schrodinger. Never mind.

[henry quirk]

SP,

You wanted the common, intuitive definition, yeah?

As I say...

The L Of I is: The thing is the thing and no other. My coffee cup is my coffee cup and no other. I am me and no other.

Seems to me I satisfied your requirements of "don't ramble. Keep to the point and leave the question of the logic of it to the other forum."

Seems to me a few other folks have satisfied your requirements too.

#

Logik,

"The LAW of identity speaks to symbol-uniqueness."

That ain't right.

[Logik]

Logik,

"The LAW of identity speaks to symbol-uniqueness."

That ain't right.

Jane to the left of me has a face like a foot, and Jane to the right of me can melt your heart with a glance. The placeholders are off-kilter 'logically' (but just fine in the 'real world' cuz I can see clearly the two Janes ain't the same).

Jane is Jane is false (identity does not hold) so you ensured symbol-uniqueness.

LeftJane
RightJane

[henry quirk]

Only if comparing two different Janes.

But "LeftJane is LeftJane' is true.

The L of I refers to a reality, not the placeholder for the reality.

You can have 1000 Janes, which is to say 1000 unique individuals all sharing the same placeholder.

The placeholder, the label, the signifier, is not identity. Identity resides with the reality the placeholder is attached to.

The placeholder just holds the place, it's a device for recognition and categorizing, not the foundation of 'identity'.