The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Skepdick]

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".

So it's "pretty obvious to you" that equality and identity are two different things. Yet you keep using the symbol for equality (A=A) to express identity (A is itself).

It's pretty obvious to me that you are identical with every idiot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equals_sign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_(mathematics)

[Magnus Anderson]

So it's "pretty obvious to you" that that equality and identity are two different things. Yet you keep using the symbol for equality (A=A) to express identity (A is itself).

Your "A is itself" is a claim that the identity of A is equal to the identity of "itself". Since the word "itself" has the same meaning as "A", what you're saying is "A is A". And since the word "is", in this particular case, has the same meaning as the word "equals", you're basically saying "A = A". But it's important to note that by "A" you actually mean "the identity of A" and not simply whatever is meant by A.

The fact that you think that this isn't the case reinforces the longstanding belief that you have a serious issue with English language.

[Magnus Anderson]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equals_sign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_(mathematics)

And? How do the two links disprove anything I am saying?

You need to be less of a coward and expose your full reasoning for once instead of simply exposing one of the premises and the conclusion or throwing references. That's what enables people to learn. Otherwise, you will be forever stuck in your delusional "You just don't get it!" cycle. EXPOSE YOUR REASONING, LET'S SEE YOUR HIDDEN PREMISES, LET'S SEE IF YOUR REASONING HAS ANY MISTAKES.

[Skepdick]

Your "A is itself" is a claim that the identity of A is equal to the identity of "itself".

No, it isn't. It's the claim that A is self-identical.

The fact that you think that this isn't the case reinforces the longstanding belief that you have a serious issue with English language.

You think this is about language and not thought a priori language?

You continue to be identical with every idiot.

[Skepdick]

And? How do the two links disprove anything I am saying?

Well. I can only explain it to somebody identical with every idiot.

I can't understand it for them.

You need to be less of a coward and expose your full reasoning for once instead of simply exposing one of the premises and the conclusion or throwing references. That's what enables people to learn. Otherwise, you will be forever stuck in your delusional "You just don't get it!" cycle. EXPOSE YOUR REASONING, LET'S SEE YOUR HIDDEN PREMISES, LET'S SEE IF YOUR REASONING HAS ANY MISTAKES.

I've been exposing it. Over and over.

The "hidden premise" is that you keep conflating equality with identity! Thus erasing their distinct identities.

That's the misconception I've tried (and failed) to draw your attention to for... days.

[Magnus Anderson]

Your "A is itself" is a claim that the identity of A is equal to the identity of "itself".

No, it isn't. It's the claim that A is self-identical.

"A is self-identical" means "A is identical to itself" which means "A has the same identity as itself" which means "A has the same identity as A" which means "The identity of A is the same as the identity of A" which means "The identity of A is equal to the identity of A".

Given that we found what we disagree on, the next thing would be to figure out a way to resolve the dispute. Since this is a language issue, we have to pick a method to verify the meaning of words.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like that will happen any time soon.

You think this is about language and not thought a priori language?

There is no such thing as thought without language. Thinking operates on beliefs and beliefs are always expressed in some sort of language in the same way that pictures stored on computers are always stored in certain format. To form a belief means to correctly or incorrectly map some portion of reality. A map is always made out of symbols and a language is nothing but a collection of symbols and rules governing how simpler symbols can be combined to form complex symbols in order to express what cannot by expressed by simpler symbols. So before you can perceive anything, you need symbols with which to perceive it or map it. You need some sort of language. Of course, such a language does not have to be an interpersonal language but that's another story.

But language is even more important when dealing with what other people are saying. You have to properly understand what they are saying before you can evaluate the truth value of their claims. And that, in turn, requires that you understand the language that they are speaking. Failure to do that means failure to understand at best and misunderstanding coupled with strawman arguments at worst.

Here in this thread, you're dealing with the Law of Identity, a law stated by someone else, and you're also dealing with my posts, which are, surprisingly enough, written by me.

[Skepdick]

"A is self-identical"

"A is identical to itself"

"A has the same identity as itself"

"A has the same identity as A"

"The identity of A is the same as the identity of A"

Those meanings are not identical.

Idiot.

[Magnus Anderson]

I've been exposing it. Over and over.

There is very little I can do if you're stubborn and insist that you're right and that there is no need to examine your beliefs. In this case, the belief you refuse to examine is that you're actually NOT fully exposing your reasoning. Perhaps you THINK that you do but you actually do not. Did you bother to verify that? Did you bother to ask me for details? Did you genuinely try to self-examine? Of course not. You KNOW you're right and that's the end of it.

The "hidden premise" is that you keep conflating equality with identity! Thus erasing their distinct identities.

That's not a hidden premise. I am not sure that's even a premise. It looks more like a conclusion.

[Skepdick]

That's not a hidden premise. I am not sure that's even a premise. It looks more like a conclusion.

Hence the inverted commas.

Idiot.

[Magnus Anderson]

That's not a hidden premise. I am not sure that's even a premise. It looks more like a conclusion.

Hence the inverted commas.

Idiot.

And the point of that is exactly what? What are you trying to achieve other than to ruin this place with your bullshit?

[Skepdick]

And the point of that is exactly what? What are you trying to achieve other than to ruin this place with your bullshit?

My bullshit?

You are fucking hilarious, idiot.

[Magnus Anderson]

"A is self-identical"

"A is identical to itself"

"A has the same identity as itself"

"A has the same identity as A"

"The identity of A is the same as the identity of A"

Those meanings are not identical.

Idiot.

See? No argument whatsoever. No premises, no reasoning, no explanation why these meanings are not identical. No effort whatsoever to try and resolve the dispute. Just crude forceful assertion of what was previously asserted by you and understood by the other side.

[Skepdick]

See. No argument whatsoever. No explanation why these meanings are not identical.

Did you give any argument and explanation whatsoever why those meanings are identical?

Of course, one can only expect a double standard from a bullshitter.

No effort whatsoever to try and resolve the dispute.

Just crude forceful assertion of what was previously asserted and understood by the other side.

Oh yay! So the "other side" (you!) understands that those meanings are not identical? Dispute resolved, I guess?

Fucking idiot.

[Magnus Anderson]

And the point of that is exactly what? What are you trying to achieve other than to ruin this place with your bullshit?

My bullshit?

You are fucking hilarious, idiot.

"Look what I've reduced you to."
-- iambiguous

[Skepdick]

And the point of that is exactly what? What are you trying to achieve other than to ruin this place with your bullshit?

My bullshit?

You are fucking hilarious, idiot.

"Look what I've reduced you to."
-- iambiguous

You've reduced me to somebody who has nothing left to say but the truth.

You are a fucking idiot.