commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:53 am
... for that is how we decide if something makes sense or not in the physical world.
In the vast majority of cases humans and other living things get on perfectly well without using, or even having any knowledge of an abstract notion like the "law of identity".
The law of identity is not a physical law, and has no part in the physical world.
You’re beginning to convince me. But how can you say that ordinary people don’t apply the Law of Identity intuitively?
Human tend to categorise, and find patterns. It's matter of convenience to make a category such as food, then fruit, then apples. But really I do not think we ever used anything like the law of identity in any way.
We love to ignore differences to make our life easier. We can take an entire nation of people or an entire religion and decide to categorise them as "enemy", for example.
There are instances where difference does not matter. One apple is much like another - like enough to eat. But I can't see where you'd ever need such a thing as the Law of I.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:22 am
In the vast majority of cases humans and other living things get on perfectly well without using, or even having any knowledge of an abstract notion like the "law of identity".
The law of identity is not a physical law, and has no part in the physical world.
You’re beginning to convince me. But how can you say that ordinary people don’t apply the Law of Identity intuitively?
Human tend to categorise, and find patterns. It's matter of convenience to make a category such as food, then fruit, then apples. But really I do not think we ever used anything like the law of identity in any way.
We love to ignore differences to make our life easier. We can take an entire nation of people or an entire religion and decide to categorise them as "enemy", for example.
There are instances where difference does not matter. One apple is much like another - like enough to eat. But I can't see where you'd ever need such a thing as the Law of I.
Yes, yes, yes. All that is true.
Magic can be entertaining. We know that an apple is not an orange, because of LI, but, when the magician makes it appear possible to defy LI, we are amused because, not knowing LI isn’t a physical rule, we know that a thing can only be what it is, itself. You may say that this is due to illusion, but in the physical universe no one would believe that an apple is an illusion of an orange.
You’re beginning to convince me. But how can you say that ordinary people don’t apply the Law of Identity intuitively?
Human tend to categorise, and find patterns. It's matter of convenience to make a category such as food, then fruit, then apples. But really I do not think we ever used anything like the law of identity in any way.
We love to ignore differences to make our life easier. We can take an entire nation of people or an entire religion and decide to categorise them as "enemy", for example.
There are instances where difference does not matter. One apple is much like another - like enough to eat. But I can't see where you'd ever need such a thing as the Law of I.
Yes, yes, yes. All that is true.
Magic can be entertaining. We know that an apple is not an orange, because of LI, but, when the magician makes it appear possible to defy LI, we are amused because, not knowing LI isn’t a physical rule, we know that a thing can only be what it is, itself. You may say that this is due to illusion, but in the physical universe no one would believe that an apple is an illusion of an orange.
