My view is that a is not a and is a.

[henry quirk]

the apple is the apple and is no other apple

You got it wrong henry. An apple is itself and nothing else.

Another apple is itself also. It's not the same as the first apple.

A is A

Those are two apples. They are different apples.

A is not A.

nope

the apple is the apple and is no other apple

A is A

...and...

an apple is an apple (it does not transform into a pineapple, or penguin)

A is A

[Skepdick]

the apple is the apple and is no other apple

I agree in English, but you are translating it wrong into Logic.

A is A

Those are two apples!!!!

One apple on the left of the "is".
One apple on the right of the "is"

A is A

Two apples again...

Look... you can argue with me all you want, but you can't argue with logic.

https://repl.it/repls/GoldenDefenselessParser

Code: Select all

from universe import A

print (A() == A()) # False

[henry quirk]

paraphrasin' the master: I can make logic mean whatever I want...

...so...

...go pound sand

A is A

[Skepdick]

paraphrasin' the master: I can make logic mean whatever I want...

...so...

...go pound sand

A is A

Of course, you can! You can make logic mean anything you want it to mean. Because meaning is subjective.

But objectively, using my system of logic you are still wrong.

https://repl.it/repls/GoldenDefenselessParser

Code: Select all

from universe import A

try:
  assert ( A() == A() )
except AssertionError:
  print('Skepdick wins the argument.')
else:
  print('Henry Quirk wins the argument.')

A is not A. I win the argument.

Objectively decided by a computer.

[henry quirk]

[Skepdick]

Logic has decided.

https://repl.it/repls/GoldenDefenselessParser

argument.png

[henry quirk]

Logic has decided.

https://repl.it/repls/GoldenDefenselessParser

argument.png

nope: I did

[Skepdick]

nope: I did

Obviously!

You decided: you win
I decided: I win
The computer decided: I win

Skepdick 2 : Henry 1

I win.

[TheVisionofEr]

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:38 pm
In discussion or understanding with words we talk about what is the same. However nothing remians the same except in a limited way.
All things are unique in some way. No two oak leaves are the same. Since things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another, it would be impossible to say there are two oak leaves since 1+1=2, that would be a lie since each leaf is different. You could only say that there is a leaf and there is another leaf.

Balzac says: Thus, you will never find in all nature two identical objects; in the natural order, therefore, two and two can never make four, for, to attain that result, we must combine units that are exactly alike, and you know that it is impossible to find two leaves alike on the same tree, or two identical individuals in the same species of tree.
That axiom of your numeration, false in visible nature, is false likewise in the invisible universe of your abstractions, where the same variety is found in your ideas, which are the objects of the visible world extended by their interrelations; indeed, the differences are more striking there than elsewhere.

Thus, he denies that mathematical units, the abstraction in the understanding, are properly the same.

However, what strikes to me is that we are tacitly assuming that “the Leaf” is the same as itself. Which posits a moment outside of time where everything can be “the same”. If, for example, a leaf as part of our understanding includes a tacit thinking about not only the actual leaf, but also what it possibly is to be, we can see another dimension of the difficulty. The future or potential changes in “the Leaf” is already assumed in “the Leaf”. So far as the future or potential changes sufficiently there would be a qualitative change in the forum of "the Leaf".

[TheVisionofEr]

An oak leaf is an oak leaf: A is A.

In what region is this analysis happening? I see with the eyes an oak leaf, but I add by talking: "It is an oak leaf." The eyes and the understanding work together. Though the understanding seems to issue from "within."

When we see an oak, observing it directly, it seems to pass from some place "over there" into ourselves (this effect is ore striking with sound, but, light must come to us by the physicists description just as the sound waves are supposed to). It crosses a threshold which is invisible and doesn't exist. This is called in Aristotle the morphe or form of life. It enters into life or the soul as a kind of knowing. Supposedly there is knowledge from the eyes and from or for the understanding.

On the other hand, we can say allowed, "The oak leaf." And the sound of ourselves talking is "out there" in the region of the senses. And so perhaps A is A is not a rule of logic, but something in the region of the senses. And so to the understanding is not in us, but "out there."

Now, out there everything is always different. the whole of the universe is never "the same". And yet, we say it is "like this" implying a moment that is "the same" and correspondingly escaping from the change of all things in time.

[henry quirk]

nope: I did

Obviously!

You decided: you win
I decided: I win
The computer decided: I win

Skepdick 2 : Henry 1

I win.

my magic sez I do

[Skepdick]

my magic sez I do

Computers are not magic 8-balls, Henry.

They are perfectly transparent in their thought process. Unlike humans.

[Skepdick]

No not even clones can occupy the same space/time.

That is the crux of it. The position of a thing in spacetime uniquely defines its identity.
Mathematics equivocates Metaphysical identity with equality. They are not the same thing.

A and B are leaves.

A is identical to A
A is not equal to A
A is not identical to B
A is equal to B

https://repl.it/repls/MelodicOrneryStack

Code: Select all

from universe import Leaf

# A is a leaf
A = Leaf()

# A is identical to itself 
assert ( ( id(A) == id(A) ) == True )
# A is not equal to itself
assert ( (A == A) == False )

# B is another Leaf
B = Leaf()

# A is not identical to B
assert ( ( id(A) == id(B) ) == False )
# A is equal to B
assert ( (A == B) == True )

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note Buddhism's Two-Truths Theory;

• A is A
  A is not-A

There is no contradiction because both can be at the same time, but not in the same sense/perspective.

• Example;
  Water is Water - common sense but at the same time,
  Water is not-Water but H2O - scientific sense.

The application of the above, i.e. the ability to shift perspective to optimize, do have a range of values for survival and the preservation of the human species.

What is most critical with the Two-Truth theories within Buddhism is this;

• 1. Self is Self - common realist sense
  2. Self is not-self but a bundle of energy, Emptiness, etc. - anti-realist sense.

When a person [philosophical realist] is stuck with 1. i.e. self is self as a thing or entity, this lead to eternalism, the idea of a soul that can survives physical death, theism and the whole load of evil that come with theism with the potential threat to exterminate humanity. [when Islamists get to cheaply and easily available nukes and bio WMDs].

When a person is able to toggle between the two truths and sense to optimize with conditions we can optimize humanity's survival.

[Skepdick]

In discussion or understanding with words we talk about what is the same. However nothing remians the same except in a limited way.

You may find this paper on Logic interesting.

Locus solum: From the rules of logic to the logic of rules

Locus Solum means something like "Only the location matters"