Dumb #2.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:39 pmI even coloured it in for you.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:32 pm It's called being a retard who refuses to speak in a way that everyone can understand so that he can impress, distract and confuse while concealing the fact that he has absolutely nothing of substance to add.
(A=A) = False.
The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change
-
Magnus Anderson
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change
Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change
Am I? Are you sure it's not you?
What is the ontology of "now" ?
-
Magnus Anderson
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change
Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change
Nah, dumbo. You are Number 1 dumb.
-
Magnus Anderson
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change
Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change
Are you going to tell us, King Dumbus Idioticus Philosophicus?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:45 pmDumb #3.
What is an ontological now?
-
Magnus Anderson
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change
Are you going to tell us now; or now; or now; or now?
-
Magnus Anderson
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
-
Magnus Anderson
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change
It took him 6 dumb posts to finally give up. I have to say I am impressed. Usually, it takes him a lot more than that.
The Law of Identity isn't saying that portions of reality that have the same name have identical content. Obviously, you can call two different things the same name e.g. two different moments in time can be called "now", two different people can be called "John" and so on. The Law of Identity is merely saying that every segment of reality is identical to itself. You can call it two different names if you want e.g. "A" and "B". Since these names refer to the same segment of reality, it trivially follows that "A = B". That's the Law of Identity.
Did he address that? Did he agree or disagree? In case he disagreed, did he explain why? He didn't do any of that. He completely ignored that point. Obviously, he does not really care what the Law of Identity is saying. He's going to argue against it anyways.
What he did instead is he presented a rather silly argument that "A = A" is false because by the time we write the second "A" the portion of reality "A" is referring to has changed.
So if "A" refers to some specific completed period of time in the past then by the time we write the second "A" that past period of time has changed?
You have to actually believe that symbols can only refer to present existence in order to be able to believe his silly argument. You have to believe that you can't talk about the past and the future because they aren't the present; and that if you think you're talking about them that you're most likely talking about something in the present, e.g. your thoughts or memories.
The guy believes that everything exists -- including such things as unicorns. When you ask them to show you these unicorns, he points to your head and says, "They are concepts in your mind".
I call that sort of idiocy, "Being stuck in an empiricist cave."
The Law of Identity isn't saying that portions of reality that have the same name have identical content. Obviously, you can call two different things the same name e.g. two different moments in time can be called "now", two different people can be called "John" and so on. The Law of Identity is merely saying that every segment of reality is identical to itself. You can call it two different names if you want e.g. "A" and "B". Since these names refer to the same segment of reality, it trivially follows that "A = B". That's the Law of Identity.
Did he address that? Did he agree or disagree? In case he disagreed, did he explain why? He didn't do any of that. He completely ignored that point. Obviously, he does not really care what the Law of Identity is saying. He's going to argue against it anyways.
What he did instead is he presented a rather silly argument that "A = A" is false because by the time we write the second "A" the portion of reality "A" is referring to has changed.
So if "A" refers to some specific completed period of time in the past then by the time we write the second "A" that past period of time has changed?
You have to actually believe that symbols can only refer to present existence in order to be able to believe his silly argument. You have to believe that you can't talk about the past and the future because they aren't the present; and that if you think you're talking about them that you're most likely talking about something in the present, e.g. your thoughts or memories.
The guy believes that everything exists -- including such things as unicorns. When you ask them to show you these unicorns, he points to your head and says, "They are concepts in your mind".
I call that sort of idiocy, "Being stuck in an empiricist cave."
Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change
Which portion of reality is "now", dumb ass? Go ahead and explicate the content of 'now' on realist terms.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 3:29 am The Law of Identity isn't saying that portions of reality that have the same name have identical content.
When does now begin? When does now end? Is it still now; or is it over now? Where does one moment end and another one begin? What is the duration of a moment?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 3:29 am So if "A" refers to some specific completed period of time in the past then by the time we write the second "A" that past period of time has changed?
You are so dumb you don't even understand what the act of definition entails.
from Old French definer, from a variant of Latin definire, from de- (expressing completion) + finire ‘finish’ (from finis ‘end’).
If you can't even define it how are you going to identify it?
I call that sort of idiocy "Being stuck in the cave of identity"Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 3:29 am I call that sort of idiocy, "Being stuck in an empiricist cave."
If you believe in the Law of Identity (A=A) and think it applies universally, then prove it by giving a stable identity to 'now'
If you can't even define it how are you going to identify it?
-
Magnus Anderson
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change
The word "now" refers to the moment in time during which the word "now" was uttered.
Of course, speaking and writing takes time, so the question then becomes: Which of the many moments that constitute the utterance of the word "now" does the word "now" refer to?
And the answer to that may be, "The very first moment."
But how does one determine the very first moment of an utterance? Exactly when does an utterance begin?
A not-so-easy question to answer that fortunately for us, and unfortunately for Skeppie McDickie, does not have to be answered.
When he has nothing of substance to add, he asks a lot of mindless and irrelevant questions. He makes sure they are difficult so that you won't be able to answer them. And when you refuse to answer them, he simply declares that you're being evasive. Of course, he's not open to the idea that he's asking irrelevant questions. But then, is there anything he's actually open to? The guy is a serious brainwreck.
One does not have to count a trillion apples and a trillion oranges in order to show that a trillion is equal to a trillion. But according to Skeppie McDickie, one absolutely has to. Why? Because he's a complete and utter imbecile, that's why.
Of course, speaking and writing takes time, so the question then becomes: Which of the many moments that constitute the utterance of the word "now" does the word "now" refer to?
And the answer to that may be, "The very first moment."
But how does one determine the very first moment of an utterance? Exactly when does an utterance begin?
A not-so-easy question to answer that fortunately for us, and unfortunately for Skeppie McDickie, does not have to be answered.
When he has nothing of substance to add, he asks a lot of mindless and irrelevant questions. He makes sure they are difficult so that you won't be able to answer them. And when you refuse to answer them, he simply declares that you're being evasive. Of course, he's not open to the idea that he's asking irrelevant questions. But then, is there anything he's actually open to? The guy is a serious brainwreck.
One does not have to count a trillion apples and a trillion oranges in order to show that a trillion is equal to a trillion. But according to Skeppie McDickie, one absolutely has to. Why? Because he's a complete and utter imbecile, that's why.
-
Magnus Anderson
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change
The Law of Identity states that every portion of reality is identical to itself.
A portion of reality does not have to be a single moment. It can also be a period of time. And it does not have to be a physical object, it can be a property of it.
A portion of reality can be something like the presence of a brain inside Skeppie McDickie's skull last Saturday.
"A = A" in this case would be "The presence of a brain inside Skeppie McDickie's skull last Saturday = the presence of a brain inside Skeppie McDickie's skull last Saturday".
If it was there at all times, it was there at all times.
If it was present at times but not at all times, then it was present at times but not at all times.
And if it was absent at all times, then it was absent at all times.
Trivial stuff that wannabe tryhard "thinkers" have yet to grasp.
A portion of reality does not have to be a single moment. It can also be a period of time. And it does not have to be a physical object, it can be a property of it.
A portion of reality can be something like the presence of a brain inside Skeppie McDickie's skull last Saturday.
"A = A" in this case would be "The presence of a brain inside Skeppie McDickie's skull last Saturday = the presence of a brain inside Skeppie McDickie's skull last Saturday".
If it was there at all times, it was there at all times.
If it was present at times but not at all times, then it was present at times but not at all times.
And if it was absent at all times, then it was absent at all times.
Trivial stuff that wannabe tryhard "thinkers" have yet to grasp.
Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change
Such serious thinker he can't even distinguish between identity and equality.
Identity is unary.
Equality is binary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arity
Take the predicate isItself?(X). It's defined as always true. For all X.
Take the predicate isEqual?(X,Y). It's not defined as always true. For all X,Y.
That's not identity.
Idiot.
You've conflated the identities of identity and equality.
-
Magnus Anderson
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change
Dumb #7.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 11:14 amSuch serious thinker he can't even distinguish between identity and equality.
Identity is unary.
Equality is binary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arity
Take the predicate isItself?(X). It's defined as always true. For all X.
Take the predicate isEqual?(X,Y). It's not defined as always true. For all X,Y.
That's not identity.
Idiot.
You've conflated the identities of identity and equality.