The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Skepdick]

Dumb #7.

You can count to 7 but you can't tell the difference between unary (1) and binary (2)?

Dumb.

[Magnus Anderson]

Dumb #7.

You can count to 7 but you can't tell the difference between unary (1) and binary (2)?

Dumb.

Dumb #8.

[Skepdick]

Dumb #7.

You can count to 7 but you can't tell the difference between unary (1) and binary (2)?

Dumb.

Dumb #8.

You sure can count to 8, but you can't tell the difference between unary (1) and binary (2)?

Dumb.

[Magnus Anderson]

You sure can count to 8, but you can't tell the difference between unary (1) and binary (2)?

Dumb.

Dumb #9.

[Magnus Anderson]

You're trying too hard, Skeppie.

Arity refers to the number of arguments a function has.

Unary functions have an arity of 1, i.e. they have 1 argument.

Binary functions have an arity of 2, i.e. they have 2 arguments.

Banal stuff that we're supposed to believe hides some deep truth.

Your "isItself" function takes 1 argument. But you forget to mention that there's a similar function that does the same job that that takes 2 arguments: "isTheSamePortionOfReality". Your "itItself( x )" would be equivalent to "isTheSamePortionOfReality( x, x )". See? Nothing to do with arity. But more importantly, the Law of Identity isn't really concerned with identity in The Ship of Theseus sense of the word. The function that captures the Law of Identity would be, "equalInContent". Whereas "isTheSamePortionOfReality" returns "true" if two portions of reality are the same portion of reality, the function "equalInContent" returns true if two portions of reality are identical in content. That's really what the Law of Identity is about. But you don't understand that because you don't pay attention.

You are . . . an idiot.

[Skepdick]

You're trying too hard, Skeppie.

You are trying too hard, Magnus.

Arity refers to the number of arguments a function has.

I know.

Unary functions have an arity of 1, i.e. they have 1 argument.

Binary functions have an arity of 2, i.e. they have 2 arguments.

Banal stuff that we're supposed to believe hides some deep truth.

Well done! So banal you pay lip service to it, and then you have no clue how to apply it in practice.

Your "isItself" function takes 1 argument. But you forget to mention that there's a similar function that does the same job that that takes 2 arguments: "isTheSamePortionOfReality". Your "itItself( x )" would be equivalent to "isTheSamePortionOfReality( x, x )". See? Nothing to do with arity.

See. You don't understand the difference between unary (x) and binary (x,x).

isTheSamePortionOfReality( x, x) retu

But more importantly, the Law of Identity isn't really concerned with identity in The Ship of Theseus sense of the word. The function that captures the Law of Identity would be, "equalInContent".

No, it isn't. You are still confusing identity and equality.

Two different portions of reality can have equal content. That doesn't mean they are identical portions of reality.

Whereas "isTheSamePortionOfReality" returns "true" if two portions of reality are the same portion of reality, the function "equalInContent" returns true if two portions of reality are identical in content. That's really what the Law of Identity is about. But you don't understand that because you don't pay attention.

You are . . . an idiot.

Well, I'll keep on pretending you aren't saying bullshit so I can teach you and cure you of your ignorance

But I am not sure I'll play along for much longer

[Magnus Anderson]

No, it isn't. You are still confusing identity and equality.

Two different portions of reality can have equal content. That doesn't mean they are identical portions of reality.

And you're still being a nitwit who refuses to listen.

From Google:

identical
/ʌɪˈdɛntɪkl/
adjective
1.
similar in every detail; exactly alike.
"four girls in identical green outfits"

Four girls in four different dresses that are identical in color, i.e. they are all green. They are not wearing one and the same dress. They are wearing four different dresses with each dress having its own, distinct, identity. And yet, they are identical dresses. How is that possible?

Maybe, and only maybe, because the word "identical" is so very often used to mean "equal in content" or "equal in some regard"?

You're quibbling, Skeppie. That's all you do.

You try REALLY REALLY hard and you fail EVERY single time.

But I am not sure I'll play along for much longer

Hopefully, you won't.

[Skepdick]

And you're still being a nitwit who refuses to listen.

Yeah. I don't listen to nitwits who don't understand identity.

Four girls in four different dresses that are identical in color, i.e. they are all green.

Yeah.. That's not identity.

They are not wearing one and the same dress.

Precisely. Because two dresses can never be identical.

Because there's TWO of them.

They are wearing four different dresses with each dress having its own, distinct, identity.

Precisely.Because no two dresses are identical.

And yet, they are identical dresses. How is that possible?

Trivially. By equivocating identity.

Identity is a self-relation.
A and B are distinct.
A is identical to itself.
B is identical to itself.
If A and B are identical then you are equivocating identity as a binary relation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_ ... scernibles

The identity of indiscernibles is an ontological principle that states that there cannot be separate objects or entities that have all their properties in common.

Separate objects are never identical.

That's why identity is a unary predicate, not a binary relation (like equality).

Having explained this multiple times It's safe to conclude you are too dumb to understand it.

[Magnus Anderson]

So you've decided to ignore the Google definition, the definition that everyone goes by, opting instead to pointlessly force your own. Exactly what do you think you will show or prove by doing that? That you're not particularly bright does not count.

And we've already established that you don't understand what the term "equivocation" means. But that does not stop you from misusing it, doesn't it? The same way you misuse many other terms, the Law of Identity being one of them.

How many arguments does the function called "IsSkepdickTimeSeeker()" have? It has exactly 0 arguments, doesn't it? It's a nullary function. And yet, it compares the identity of Skepdick to the identity of Time Seeker, returning true every single time because the two brainwrecks are actually one and the same brainwreck. Or how about a function such as "hasEqualIdentity( x, y )"? That's a binary function, it accepts 2 arguments. And yet, it's doing the same thing: comparing the identity of "x" to the identity of "y". When "x" is "Skepdick" and "y" is "Time Seeker", the function returns true . . . because, again, we have two different names representing one and the same embarrassment. How is that possible if identity check is strictly unary? Well, perhaps because, and only because, it has nothing to do with arity and you're merely misusing the term, as you usually do with many other terms.

And what's the point of any of this other than to distract, confuse, cnoceal and impress? How does it relate to the Law of Identity? How does that support your idiotic pretentious stance that the Law of Identity isn't true in all cases?

You should give up. The distinction between equal content and equal identity is pretty clear to pretty much everyone. And yet, the Law of Identity is all about the former -- equal content. It says the content of every thing T is equal to the content of that very thing T. What's so difficult to grasp? Perhaps the standard use of the word "identity" confuses you, making you incapable of listening and thinking clearly? Maybe you have your head focusing too much on programming and too little on normal everyday communication?

You've never been anything more than a blabbering, doubt instilling, argue-against-everything, tryhard wannabe "thinker" imbecile.

[Skepdick]

So you've decided to ignore the Google definition, the definition that everyone goes by, opting instead to pointlessly force your own. Exactly what do you think you will show or prove by doing that? That you're not particularly bright does not count.

And we've already established that you don't understand what the term "equivocation" means. But that does not stop you from misusing it, doesn't it? The same way you misuse many other terms, the Law of Identity being one of them.

How many arguments does the function called "IsSkepdickTimeSeeker()" have? It has exactly 0 arguments, doesn't it? It's a nullary function. And yet, it compares the identity of Skepdick to the identity of Time Seeker, returning true every single time because the two brainwrecks are actually one and the same brainwreck. Or how about a function such as "hasEqualIdentity( x, y )"? That's a binary function, it accepts 2 arguments. And yet, it's doing the same thing: comparing the identity of "x" to the identity of "y". When "x" is "Skepdick" and "y" is "Time Seeker", the function returns true . . . because, again, we have two different names representing one and the same embarrassment. How is that possible if identity check is strictly unary? Well, perhaps because, and only because, it has nothing to do with arity and you're merely misusing the term, as you usually do with many other terms.

And what's the point of any of this other than to distract, confuse, cnoceal and impress? How does it relate to the Law of Identity? How does that support your idiotic pretentious stance that the Law of Identity isn't true in all cases?

You should give up. The distinction between equal content and equal identity is pretty clear to pretty much everyone. And yet, the Law of Identity is all about the former -- equal content. It says the content of every thing T is equal to the content of that very thing T. What's so difficult to grasp? Perhaps the standard use of the word "identity" confuses you, making you incapable of listening and thinking clearly? Maybe you have your head focusing too much on programming and too little on normal everyday communication?

You've never been anything more than a blabbering, doubt instilling, argue-against-everything, tryhard wannabe "thinker" imbecile.

Hmm, now that you've opened my eyes I realize you've been100% correct all along.

You are identical with every idiot.

[Magnus Anderson]

"A = A" means "The content of the portion of reality represented by A is the same as the content of the portion of reality represented by A".

"A" and "A" are variables. They represent the content of some portion of reality. The equality sign ( "=" ) means "the same".

The term "portion of reality" is here used in the broadest sense possible to refer to any segment or aspect of reality.

The term "portion of reality" is not restricted to full spatial regions. ( A full spatial region is a spatial region with all of its physical elements that constitute it, i.e. molecules, atoms, etc. )

The term "portion of reality" can also be used to denote the volume of a thing or the height of a person ( either exact, fixed precision, threshold-based or some other type of height. ) This means that the tallness of a person would also be considered a portion of reality. ( Here, the word "tallness" is used to refer to threshold-based height where "tall" means higher than some exact height and the word "short" means lower than that. )

The term "portion of reality" can be used to denote spatial regions at a single point in time, but also, it can be used to denote spatial regions that span across time. This is what allows us to say that the John's boat in 2025 is the same boat as the John's boat in 2020 even though, given that it underwent change, the state of John's boat in 2025 is not the same as the state of John's boat in 2020.

Finally, the term "portion of reality" can also be used to denote the identity of a thing, i.e. the portion of reality it occupies ( the identity of a thing being the same as the portion of reality it occupies. )

That said, the Law of Identity, expressed as "A = A" or "A is A", is a general law that applies to every conceivable portion of reality and it is thus not restricted to identity.

Thank you very much.

[Skepdick]

"A = A" means "The content of the portion of reality represented by A is the same as the content of the portion of reality represented by A".

"A" and "A" are variables. They represent the content of some portion of reality. The equality sign ( "=" ) means "the same".

Only a person identical with an idiot fails to grasp that identity (unary self-relation) can never be false, but equality (binary relation) can be.

Because identity is not equality.

[Magnus Anderson]

Only a person identical with an idiot fails to grasp that identity (unary self-relation) can never be false, but equality (binary relation) can be.

Because identity is not equality.

It's pretty obvious to me, and I am sure to everyone else, that A is always itself. That's not where we disagree. But the fact that you can't see that, and thus move this discussion forward, is what baffles me. How retarded must someone be to be so stuck regarding simple things?

It seems like you're raising the stupid objection that "A is always itself" is not another way of saying "The identity of A is equal to the identity of A". Your reasoning being, "Equality has the possibility of being false! Self-identity check does not!" That's a pretty dumb objection.

[Skepdick]

Only a person identical with an idiot fails to grasp that identity (unary self-relation) can never be false, but equality (binary relation) can be.

Because identity is not equality.

It's pretty obvious to me, and I am sure to everyone else, that A is always itself. That's not where we disagree. But the fact that you can't see that, and thus move this discussion forward, is what baffles me. How retarded must someone be to so stuck regarding simple things?

It seems like you're raising the stupid object that "A is always itself" is not another way of saying "The identity of A is equal to the identity of A". Your reasoning being, "Equality has the possibility of being false! Self-identity check does not!" That's a pretty dumb objection.

Sounds like we agree then.

You are identical with every idiots.

[Magnus Anderson]

Because identity is not equality.

This too. How stupid. It's pretty obvious to me, and I am pretty sure everyone else, that equality and identity are two different things. Equality means that what's being compared is the same. Identity refers to what makes something separate from other things.

The Law of Identity is about things being equal to themselves. It's expressed as "A = A" or "A is A". It's right there in front of your eyes. It's a far more general law that is not restricted to comparing identities. Rumors have it that you're blinded by the name of the law containing the word "identity".