The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Skepdick]

So you're saying that each one of the 4 statements points to a separate meaning, i.e. there are 4 meanings in total rather than 1. Exactly how and why should anyone care?

Because that's how sameness works! When we say two things are "the same," we're actually engaging in abstraction.
This abstraction process involves deliberately ignoring certain differences between objects.

Two things are perceived and said to be "the same" once ignore the differences between them!

I have no clue what this means.

Why not?

Itself is itself. The pronoun "itself" has its own identity.
Earth is itself. The proper noun "Earth" has its own identity.
The identity of the pronoun "itself" is not the identity of the proper noun "Earth".

When you say "Earth is itself" the pronoun "itself' loses its identity as a pronoun and acquires the identity of the proper noun Earth.

Understand that I am not talking about symbols but to what they point to.

1000% understood. I've spent all this time trying to explain to you what the symbol "identity" points to.

I've spent all this time trying to explain to you that the referent of "identity" is not identical to the referent of "sameness"!

What the symbol "A" points to is the same as what the symbol "itself" points to.

The above statement is the same but is NOT identical to the statement "What the symbol "A" points to is identical to what the symbol "itself" points to."

"A" and "itself" remain not only different in content ( i.e. letters that constitute them ) but also different in identity ( i.ie. they are 2 words rather than 1 word. )

You said you are not talking about symbols but to what they point to. What am I to make of your confusion?

So when you say "A is itself" (lets assume A represents Earth) does "itself" refer to the symbol "A"; or to Earth?

Again, nothing is said about the symbols "A" and "itself" themselves.

I don't care about the symbols themselves. I care about what they refer to!

Earth always refers to Earth.
Itself doesn't always refer to itself!

The claim is that "A" and "itself" point to one and the same thing. The symbols themselves are still 2 separate symbols. And they also remain different in content since they have different letters. ( They only point to the same thing. )

Obviously! Once the pronoun "itself" is applied to A it loses its own identity and acquires the identity of A!

This is how equivocation works.

Earth is itself.
Itself is itself.
Itself is not Earth.

[Magnus Anderson]

So you're saying that each one of the 4 statements points to a separate meaning, i.e. there are 4 meanings in total rather than 1. Exactly how and why should anyone care?

Because that's how sameness works! When we say two things are "the same," we're actually engaging in abstraction.
This abstraction process involves deliberately ignoring certain differences between objects.

Two things are perceived and said to be "the same" once ignore the differences between them!

You didn't answer my questions. In fact, you did not even tell me whether my interpretation is correct or incorrect. Instead, you just went on to repeat the common misconception regarding "how sameness works". Focusing on a portion of reality is not the same thing as abstraction ( a commonly misused term. ) And determining whether or not two portions of reality are the same does not require us to ignore their differences. It merely requires that we choose what we're comparing.

I can see how each one of these 4 phrases have their own meanings ( resulting in 4 meanings in total rather than 1 ) even though these meanings are the same otherwise. However, that's irrelevant. The point is that these words have THE SAME meaning. If "A" and "itself" have the same meaning, which they do, then we can substitute "itself" with "A". That these meanings do not have the same identity is irrelevant as it does not prevent us from performing the substitution.

[Skepdick]

You didn't answer my questions. In fact, you did not even tell me whether my interpretation is correct or incorrect. Instead, you just went on to repeat the common misconception regarding "how sameness works". Focusing on a portion of reality is not the same thing as abstraction ( a commonly misused term. )

You are equating 4 different portions of reality. As one!

You are demonstrating how sameness works. By discarding difference!

The side-effect of focusing is the omission of that which is not being focused on.
That's abstraction!

And determining whether or not two portions of reality are the same does not require us to ignore their differences. It merely requires that we choose what we're comparing.

Well you can't be comparing any of their differences! Otherwise you'd quickly figure out that they are neither the same nor identical.

Sameness is asserted despite obvious differences!

I can see how each one of these 4 phrases have their own meanings ( resulting in 4 meanings in total rather than 1 ) even though these meanings are the same. However, that's irrelevant.

It's exactly relevant.

4 different meanings are the same.
4 different meanings are not identical.

And it's absolutely relevant to the OP.

You may be the same person as you were yesterday, but you aren't identical to the person you were yesterday.

The point is that they have THE SAME meaning.

Yes, you INTEND them to be understood as having THE SAME meaning. Even though their meaning is NOT identical.

You are demanding that your interlocutor ignores any of the differences. Just like you have done. In order to assert SAMENESS.

I am afraid I am not prepared to turn a blind eye to those differences unless and until you tell me why you are ignoring them.

If "A" and "itself" have the same meaning, which they do, then we can substitute "itself" with "A".

No, you can't. Not always.

You can always substitute terms with identical meaning, but you can't always substitute terms with same meaning.
You can only substitute them in the context in which this "sameness" has been established.
Precisely because you've already established that whatever their differences - they don't matter.

If the gap between sameness and identity becomes relevant and negatively affects the outcome - you may not substitute.

Which was the whole damn point of....

Earth is itself.
Itself is itself.
itself is not Earth.

Identity allows universal substitution (Leibniz's Law)
Sameness allows only contextual substitution

[Magnus Anderson]

You are equating 4 different portions of reality. As one!

I am not doing that. To "equate them as one" would be to think they are one portion of reality. Yet, I acknowledge they are 4 portions of reality, namely, 4 different phrases each with its own meaning ( even if their meanings are identical. ) I am merely saying that they mean the same thing.

You are demonstrating how sameness works. By discarding difference!

The side-effect of focusing is the omission of that which is not being focused on.
That's abstraction!

I am not "discarding difference". I am merely selecting. To abstract is to abstract from. You have to select what you're abstracting from before you can perform abstraction. For example, in order to abstract from apples, you need to select apples, i.e. you need to focus your attention on specific portions of reality, which means, you have to disregard everything else ( most of the universe, in fact. ) That's not abstraction. That's merely selection. Abstraction is something else. It is a method of creating concepts-- one among many -- that involves observing features that are present in every single instance that you want to represent by the concept you're creating.

Well you can't be comparing any of their differences! Otherwise you'd quickly figure out that they are neither the same nor identical.

If two portions of reality are exactly alike, it follows that they have no differences.

Objections such as "If they are exactly the same, it follows that they are ONE portion of reality rather than TWO" and "But their locations are different!" seem intelligent on the surface but they are actually not at all.

Before you can compare 2 things and tell whether or not tehy are identical, you have to SELECT what you're comparing. And that means you have to choose whether or not location is a part of these portions of reality. If it is not then you can't use that as an argument against the claim that the two portions of reality are not identical. That would either be an equivocation fallacy or a strawman argument. If I say A and B are exactly the same, you can't argue against that by saying "But C, a superset of A, is not identical to D, a superset of B."

It's exactly relevant.

4 different meanings are the same.
4 different meanings are not identical.

And it's absolutely relevant to the OP.

You may be the same person as you were yesterday, but you aren't identical to the person you were yesterday.

How is that relevant to my claim that your "A is itself" means "The identity of A is equal to the identity of A"?

Stay focused for once.

Yes, you INTEND them to be understood as having THE SAME meaning. Even though their meaning is NOT identical.

You are demanding that your interlocutor ignores any of the differences. Just like you have done. In order to assert SAMENESS.

I am afraid I am not prepared to turn a blind eye to those differences unless and until you tell me why you are ignoring them.

I am merely saying that the meaning of "A is itself" is the same as the meaning of "The identity of A is equal to the identiy of A" in the same way that the meaning of the word "bicycle" is the same as the meaning of the word "bike". I am NOT saying the two meanings have the same identity. They obviously do not. Changing the meaning of the first sentence won't change the meaning of the second.

You can always substitute terms with identical meaning, but you can't always substitute terms with same meaning.

Can you give us an example? A situation where two different symbols A and B cannot be substituted one for another even though they have the same meaning? That would be of help.

[Magnus Anderson]

If I say A and B are exactly the same, you can't argue against that by saying "But C, a superset of A, is not identical to D, a superset of B."

An interesting thing. When you take this rather bizarre way of thinking, where a portion of reality A is conflated with a portion of reality B that contains A, and take it to its extreme, you end up concluding that everything is the same, that all is one. The ultimate superset is the universe itself. Everything is the universe itself. And the universe itself is identical to itself. It's the complete opposite of the shallow thinker's, "Everything is different!"

[Skepdick]

I am not doing that. To "equate them as one" would be to think they are one portion of reality. Yet, I acknowledge they are 4 portions of reality, namely, 4 different phrases each with its own meaning ( even if their meanings are identical. ) I am merely saying that they mean the same thing.

And I am merely saying that your head and your ass are the same thing.

I am not "discarding difference". I am merely selecting. To abstract is to abstract from. You have to select what you're abstracting from before you can perform abstraction. For example, in order to abstract from apples, you need to select apples, i.e. you need to focus your attention on specific portions of reality, which means, you have to disregard everything else ( most of the universe, in fact. ) That's not abstraction. That's merely selection. Abstraction is something else. It is a method of creating concepts-- one among many -- that involves observing features that are present in every single instance that you want to represent by the concept you're creating.

I am merely selecting too. I am selecting your head and your ass as being the same.

If two portions of reality are exactly alike, it follows that they have no differences.

Then how do you know there are two portions and not one and the same portion?

Objections such as "If they are exactly the same, it follows that they are ONE portion of reality rather than TWO" and "But their locations are different!" seem intelligent on the surface but they are actually not at all.

I'd sooner fuck a goat, than be intelligent like you.

Before you can compare 2 things and tell whether or not tehy are identical, you have to SELECT what you're comparing.

Sure. But you can't "compare" 1 thing. Because comparison is binary, not unary.

And that means you have to choose whether or not location is a part of these portions of reality.

Portions? Plural? You can rest assured they are not identical then. But they may be the same.

If it is not then you can't use that as an argument against the claim that the two portions of reality are not identical.

Why would I argue against such a claim. No two things are ever identical.

How is that relevant to my claim that your "A is itself" means "The identity of A is equal to the identity of A"?

It's not relevant. Nor do I care to unpack what you are trying to say.

Are the meanings of the two sentences identical; or merely the same?

Stay focused for once.

You want me to focus on your derailment? Fuck off.

Yes, you INTEND them to be understood as having THE SAME meaning. Even though their meaning is NOT identical.

You are demanding that your interlocutor ignores any of the differences. Just like you have done. In order to assert SAMENESS.

I am afraid I am not prepared to turn a blind eye to those differences unless and until you tell me why you are ignoring them.

I am merely saying that the meaning of "A is itself" is the same as the meaning of "The identity of A is equal to the identiy of A"

Fine. Same meaning, but not identical meaning.

in the same way that the meaning of the word "bicycle" is the same as the meaning of the word "bike".

In what way is that? Since the meaning isn't identical any notion of "sameness" is just your arbitrary selection.

As you've already pointed out.

I am NOT saying the two meanings have the same identity. They obviously do not. Changing the meaning of the first sentence won't change the meaning of the second.

But are, you aren't you saying that both sentences refer to identical meaning?
Or are you saying that the meaning they refer to is the same, but not identical?

Can you give us an example? A situation where two different symbols A and B cannot be substituted one for another even though they have the same meaning? That would be of help.

Sure. A bicycle (A) and a car (B) have the same meaning - they are both meaningful modes of transport. Insofar as you only care about getting from C to D they are the same. Transport is transport is transport.

But if C and D are 500km apart and you must complete the journey in 5 hours. They are not the same. A bicycle is not fast-enough transport.

Of course, I could've gone with the other example... your head and your ass are the same, but you probably shouldn't substitute one for the other.

[Magnus Anderson]

Only 4 out of your 13 responses bares any resemblance to what would be called "constructive". As such, the other 9 will be ignored.

Then how do you know there are two portions and not one and the same portion?

They occupy different points in space.

But you can't "compare" 1 thing. Because comparison is binary, not unary.

It's a binary comparison. We're comparing a thing against itself. We have two operands, two symbols, not merely one. The fact that they point to the same portion of reality is irrelevant.

In what way is that? Since the meaning isn't identical any notion of "sameness" is just your arbitrary selection.

The portions of reality we're comparing is arbitrary.

Whether or not the two portions of reality are identical is NOT arbitrary.

Sure. A bicycle (A) and a car (B) have the same meaning - they are both meaningful modes of transport. Insofar as you only care about getting from C to D they are the same. Transport is transport is transport.

But if C and D are 500km apart and you must complete the journey in 5 hours. They are not the same.

A bicycle is not fast-enough transport.

Well, there you go.

The word "bicycle" and the word "car" do not have the same meaning at all. One is defined as \"a human-powered vehicle with two wheels, pedals, and handlebars for steering". The other is defined as "a motorized vehicle with four wheels, an engine, and a cabin for passengers". Two very different meanings. They share a number of things in common. Most notably, both are modes of transport, as you say. But that does not make the two meanings in any sort of way identical. It merely makes them similar. "Similar" and "same" are not the same.

The meaning of a symbol refers to the set of all conceivable things that can be represented by that symbol. You can't use the word "bicycle" to refer to cars, can you? And you can't use the word "car" to refer to bicycles, right?

Again, you have SEVERE issues concerning how languages work. Extremely poor understanding coupled with a ridiculously overblown ego.

[Skepdick]

They occupy different points in space.

So you've ignored at least differences in location when asserting "sameness". What else did you ignore and why?

It's a binary comparison. We're comparing a thing against itself.

Have no idea how you "compare" a thing against itself. Comparison is binary, not unary.

We have two operands, two symbols, not merely one. The fact that they point to the same portion of reality is irrelevant.

Two posts ago you said you don't care about the symbols.Why are you being such a dumb sophist cunt?

Comparison operates on the operands, not on the symbols used to talk about them.

The portions of reality we're comparing is arbitrary.

So are the criteria used to assert "sameness" between non-identical things.

Whether or not the two portions of reality are identical is NOT arbitrary.

Of course. Two of anything are never identical.

The word "bicycle" and the word "car" do not have the same meaning at all.

You have no say on this matter.

Anything I assert as having "same" meaning - has same meaning to me with respect to the arbitrary criteria for sameness and meaningfulness I am using to assert them as having "same meaning".

But, of course, you are a dumb cunt arguing in bad faith. So you are trying to hijack my criteria for "sameness" and invalidate them.

Go fuck yourself?

They share a number of things in common. Most notably, both are modes of transport, as you say. But that does not make the two meanings in any sort of way identical.

Dumb switcharoo cunt. You were talking about sameness, not identity.

A car and a bike are never identical, but they can be the same. Given the arbitrary criterion for "sameness" I am using. Transportation utility.

"Similar" and "same" are not the same.

Similarity with respect to all properties doesn't preclude sameness with respect to specific ones.

The meaning of a symbol refers to the set of all conceivable things that can be represented by that symbol.

You can't use the word "bicycle" to refer to cars, can you? And you can't use the word "car" to refer to bicycles, right?

Both of those can be used to represent means of transportation, you dumb ****.

Again, you have SEVERE issues concerning how languages work. Extremely poor understanding coupled with a ridiculously overblown ego.

Erroneous judgments like this is why you are identical with every idiot, you dumb cunt.

Refusing to be gaslit by wankers like you isn't ego - it's taking out the trash.

[Magnus Anderson]

So you've ignored at least differences in location when asserting "sameness".

Location is not a feature of the portions of reality that I am comparing. As such, I am allowed to ignore it, the same way I am allowed to ignore the rest of the universe.

Again, I am comparing apples WITHOUT location. I am NOT comparing apples WITH location the same exact way I am NOT comparing the universe aginst itself.

What else did you ignore and why?

When I am comparing 2 apples, for example, I am ignoring everything that does not belong to these 2 portions of reality. This means that I am ignoring not only their locations, but also, 1) the rest of the universe at the moment, 2) the entire past and the entire future of the universe, and 3) all of the laws that are governing the universe.

Why do I ignore these things? Because I am comparing an apple against an apple, not the universe against itself.

Again, you have to to SELECT what you're comparing in order to compare. And so, if I'm comparing apples WITHOUT their location, then people such as you raising objections such as "But they are not equal, they have different locations!" are committing a strawman fallacy by comparing different portions of reality than the ones that I am comparing.

It's pure sophistry.

Unfortunately, many have been indoctrinated to think this way. Still, it's partly their own fault for not offering sufficient resistance to negative influence. One should genuinely try to think things through. Soon afterwards, I can assure you, you will realize how idiotic this sort of thinking is. Too bad most people spend most of their energy defending themselves.

Two posts ago you said you don't care about the symbols.Why are you being such a dumb sophist cunt?

Comparison operates on the operands, not on the symbols used to talk about them.

And I generally do not. But when it comes to functions, it is the number of arguments that a function accepts that determines its arity, not how many different portions of reality their arguments point to. "sum( x, x )" is a call to a binary function even though one and the same portion of reality is referenced in both of its arguments.

So are the criteria used to assert "sameness" between non-identical things.

Not quite.

A portion of reality is a set of elements. Two portions of reality are the same, i.e. they are equal or identical, if and only if every element that is present in one is also present in the other. They are similar if they share more than 50% of their elements. And more generally, the degree of similarity between them refers to the percentage of elements they have in common. It's very simple and straightforward. But for an overthinker, everything is complicated.

The number one mistake your sort has been making since the dawn of the time is ignoring the fact that before one can compare, one has to select. Once you select what you're comparing, it's trivial.

The inability to select and stick to what you've selected, the propensity to shift from one selection to another during the process without realizing it, is what is called "equivocation fallacy".

Roughly speaking, this is how it goes. You first select apples WITHOUT location and conclude that they are identical. Then, you unconsciously change what you're comparing by focusing on apples WITH location. Then, you conclude that they are NOT identical. Then, you end up thinking you're contradicting yourself and call that a paradox. Then you try to act intelligent, as if you discovered some deep insight, unaware of the mistake that you committed in the process.

You have no say on this matter.

Anything I assert as having "same" meaning - has same meaning to me with respect to the arbitrary criteria for sameness and meaningfulness I am using to assert them as having "same meaning".

But, of course, you are a dumb **** arguing in bad faith. So you are trying to hijack my criteria for "sameness" and invalidate them.

Go fuck yourself?

Hahaha. I seriously believe you have some sort of mental disease making it difficult for you to think about these sorts of things with a clear mind.

Yuu forgot that you are addressing MY claim.

It is me who claimed that your "A is itself" has the same meaning as "The identity of A is equal to the identity of A".

And it is you who are arguing against it. And if you want to do that, you have to work with MY definitions, not yours.

Unfortunately, it seems like strawmanning and equivocation are deeply ingrained within your psyche. You can't do without them.

Dumb switcharoo ****. You were talking about sameness, not identity.

And I am still talking about sameness. The word "identical" in everyday use means the same thing as "the same". It does not mean "having the same identity".

Both of those can be used to represent means of transportation, you dumb ****.

So it's fine to call a car a bicycle?

Erroneous judgments like this is why you are identical with every idiot, you dumb ****.

Refusing to be gaslit by wankers like you isn't ego - it's taking out the trash.

"Blah, blah, blah. Wah, wah, wah. I want my mommy."

[Magnus Anderson]

I've spent all this time trying to explain to you that the referent of "identity" is not identical to the referent of "sameness"!

And you've been preaching to the choir. Everything you do is a waste of time. You never achieve anything.

The difference between "same" and "having the same identity" can't be more clear. Obviously, you find it difficult to figure out the point of dispute. But most importantly, you're way too arrogant to realize that.

The above statement is the same

And that is ALL I said.
And that's ALL that has to be said.

In the case of "A is itself", the word "itself" means the same as "A". Thus, you can substitute it with "A" to get "A is A". You're basically saying "A = A". The only difference with the Law of Identity is that by "A" you mean "the identity of A".

So when you say "A is itself" (lets assume A represents Earth) does "itself" refer to the symbol "A"; or to Earth?

It represents the Earth.

[Skepdick]

Location is not a feature of the portions of reality that I am comparing.

Really? How have you apportioned reality into locations then?

As such, I am allowed to ignore it, the same way I am allowed to ignore the rest of the universe.

Allowed? Forbidden? Who's policing your choices?

Again, I am comparing apples WITHOUT location.

Are you sure? How do you know if it's apples (plural) and not an apple (singular)? What if the "two" apples have identical location?

When I am comparing 2 apples

Ok, but are you going to answer my questions? Are those "2 apples" at identical locations or are they at non-identical locations?

Why do I ignore these things? Because I am comparing an apple against an apple, not the universe against itself.

OK, buddy. But if the "2 apples" are at an identical location you aren't comparing anything. You are just intellectually masturbating.

It's pure sophistry.

I know. I keep calling you out on it, but you don't give a shit.

And I generally do not. But when it comes to functions, it is the number of arguments that a function accepts that determines its arity

I know.

not how many different portions of reality their arguments point to. "sum( x, x )" is a call to a binary function even though one and the same portion of reality is referenced in both of its arguments.

Really? You can sum(1 apple, 1 apple) though both of your arguments point to an identical apple?

When I say you are identical with every idiot - this is why.

Not quite.

A portion of reality is a set of elements. Two portions of reality are the same, i.e. they are equal or identical

Two portions of reality are never identical. I keep having to repeat myself. Why are you so confused?

Roughly speaking, this is how it goes. You first select apples WITHOUT location and conclude that they are identical.

That's impossible.

If you select apples (plural) you can't possibly conclude they are identical. They necessarily exist at different locations!

The only way your apples(plural) are identical is if they exist at an identical location.
But then you don't have apples(plural) - you have an apple (singular).

Then, you unconsciously change what you're comparing by focusing on apples WITH location.

Unconsciously? I am focusing on location precisely because the number of unique locations determines the number of apples!

Then, you conclude that they are NOT identical.

It's not a conclusion. There's two apples. Two distinct locations. If the locations aren't identical - neither are the apples.

You seem to think that an "identical" thing can be in two places at the same time.

That's why I think you are identical with every idiot.

Hahaha. I seriously believe you have some sort of mental disease making it difficult for you to think about these sorts of things with a clear mind.

Yes. My mental disease is called "Idiot intolerance".

Yuu forgot that you are addressing MY claim.

It is me who claimed that your "A is itself" has the same meaning as "The identity of A is equal to the identity of A".

Did you forget that I already acknowledged your arbitrary claim of "sameness"?
Did you forget that you agreed that the meanings are not identical?

And it is you who are arguing against it.

I am? I agreed to your claim of sameness. Given your arbitrary criteria for "sameness".

And if you want to do that, you have to work with MY definitions, not yours.

Why? This is a thread about identity, not a thread about sameness. Nobody cares how you define "same".

Your definition is as arbitrary as everyone else's.

Unfortunately, it seems like strawmanning and equivocation are deeply ingrained within your psyche. You can't do without them.

Unfortunately being an idiot is deeply ingrained in your identity.

And I am still talking about sameness. The word "identical" in everyday use means the same thing as "the same". It does not mean "having the same identity".

But identity isn't identical to the meaning of the word "identical", so who cares?

So it's fine to call a car a bicycle?

You made the rule, idiot. You said that same things can be substituted.

If a car is the same as a bicycle then why can't I use them interchangeably?

"Blah, blah, blah. Wah, wah, wah. I want my mommy."

I am genuinely curious. Are you always such a wanker when you speak to other people, or are you only being this brave and obnoxious from the safety of your keyboard?

Like, I am starting to think punching sophists in the face isn't such a bad thing.

[Skepdick]

The difference between "same" and "having the same identity" can't be more clear.

So what's the difference between having identical identities vs having same identities?

Obviously, you find it difficult to figure out the point of dispute. But most importantly, you're way too arrogant to realize that.

Obviously, I keep pointing out that the point of your dispute is that there is no point.

You can't even point out what it is that you are disputing. Because you are a wanker who likes a philosophical quarrel.

The simplest cure for your dysfunction may well a punch to the face and a kick to the groin.

And that is ALL I said.
And that's ALL that has to be said.

That's not true. Given all criteria for sameness are arbitrary your "same" may or may not be identical to my "same".

Identical symbols don't entail identical meaning.

In the case of "A is itself", the word "itself" means the same as "A".

So its meaning of "itself" is the same, but not identical to the meaning of "A"? Fine!

What is the difference between the meaning of "itself" and the meaning of "A"?
You know, since the meaning of "itself" is not identical to the meaning of "A".

Thus, you can substitute it with "A" to get "A is A". You're basically saying "A = A". The only difference with the Law of Identity is that by "A" you mean "the identity of A".

OK... but if they are merely the same and NOT identical, shen can you NOT substitute "itself" for "A" ?

So when you say "A is itself" (lets assume A represents Earth) does "itself" refer to the symbol "A"; or to Earth?

It represents the Earth.

I didn't ask you what it represents. I asked you what it refers to.

You do understand that representation isn't identical to reference, right?

I am asking you if "itself" refers to the representation "Earth" or if it refers to which is being represented with "Earth".

[Magnus Anderson]

Really? How have you apportioned reality into locations then?

You choose what portions of reality you're going to be comparing. And that means, you choose whether or not locations are inside of them.

I can tell this is very difficult for you to grasp.

Allowed? Forbidden? Who's policing your choices?

Oh my. The happiness of having a conversation with a complete and utter imbecile.

The fact that I have to explain this to you . . .

It wouldn't bother me if you weren't such an arrogant freak at the same time.

Who's policing my decisions? Or rather, WHAT'S policing my decisions? The goal that I've set for myself, which is to determine whether or not portion A and portion B are identical. Given that the location of portion A is not a component of portion A, and given that the location of portion B is not a component of portion B, I am free to disregard them. In other words, I won't end up making a mistake by doing so. The results of my comparison of the two portions will remain unaffected.

Are you sure? How do you know if it's apples (plural) and not an apple (singular)? What if the "two" apples have identical location?

They do not. The two apples occupy two different portions of reality. They are located at two different places. They have different locations. But their locations are not a part of what they are.

Again, you choose what portions of reality you're comparing. Nothing is forcing you to include their locations within them.

Ok, but are you going to answer my questions? Are those "2 apples" at identical locations or are they at non-identical locations?

Different locations. Which proves absolutely nothing and merely allows you to get distracted ( once again, given that you're incapable of doing anything else. )

Really? You can sum(1 apple, 1 apple) though both of your arguments point to an identical apple?

If "x" is "1" then "sum( x, x )" would evaluate to "2".

Similarly, if "x" is "1" then "1 = 1" would evaluate to "true".

You can try it in any programming language of your choice.

Here's some JavaScript for you.

Code: Select all

const x = 1;

const sum = ( a, b ) => a + b;

sum( x, x )
2

Similarly . . .

Code: Select all

const x = 1;

x == x
true

Binary functions applied to one and the same variable.

Somehow it works . . .

But you're a little bit of a retard and take things way too literally. Hence your above example involving adding an apple to itself to create two apples.

Two portions of reality are never identical. I keep having to repeat myself. Why are you so confused?

Yes, you repeat yourself like a broken record. Or an insane person. Could be because you are one. Doing one and the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. Sums you up pretty well.

The word "identical" means "same". It does not mean what you'd like it to mean, i.e. "having the same identity".

Learn English language for once. But I guess you don't want to . . . you enjoy hallucinating.

That's impossible.

If you select apples (plural) you can't possibly conclude they are identical. They necessarily exist at different locations!

The only way your apples(plural) are identical is if they exist at an identical location.
But then you don't have apples(plural) - you have an apple (singular).

Tireless, brainded, stubborn, dogmatic stupidity.

I have to tell you something. You are probably one of the dumbest people I've ever seen.

If the locations aren't identical - neither are the apples.

Go back to school. Learn English language. Then come back.

My mental disease is called

Nah. You're seriously mentally ill.

I am? I agreed to your claim of sameness. Given your arbitrary criteria for "sameness".

Of course you are. But you're a braindead zombie.

Why? This is a thread about identity, not a thread about sameness. Nobody cares how you define "same".

This thread is about the Law of Identity. "A = A" does not mean "The identity of A is equal to the identity of A". It merely means "Whatever is represented by A is identical to what is represnted by A". "A" can refer to identity but it does not have to. The claim is far more general.

Your definition is as arbitrary as everyone else's.

You wish.

If a car is the same as a bicycle then why can't I use them interchangeably?

But are they? You are making this idiotic claim that they are . . .

[Skepdick]

You choose what portions of reality you're going to be comparing. And that means, you choose whether or not locations are inside of them.

Ohhh so portions of reality aren't themselves locations? You have locations in portions?
Do you have portions in locations? Do you also have sub-realities in your own reality?

So you have "inside" and "outside" of a portion, but you don't have "inside" and "outside" of a location?

Is your stupidity infinite?

I can tell this is very difficult for you to grasp.

Difficult or not I already grasped it. You are still struggling with identity.

Who's policing my decisions? Or rather, WHAT'S policing my decisions? The goal that I've set for myself, which is to determine whether or not portion A and portion B are identical.

Let me save you ALL this elaborate mental masturbation! If portion A and portion B's locations are NOT identical then portion A is NOT identical to portion B.

Given that the location of portion A is not a component of portion A, and given that the location of portion B is not a component of portion B

Idiot. Are A and B identical; or non-identical locations?

I am free to disregard them. In other words, I won't end up making a mistake by doing so. The results of my comparison of the two portions will remain unaffected.

But the result is already known. Unless A and B are identical locations then portion A and portion B are NOT identical!

Why are you performing all this intellectual masturbation?

They do not. The two apples occupy two different portions of reality. They are located at two different places. They have different locations. But their locations are not a part of what they are.

So when you said sum(x,x) are both x's occupying an identical location or are you equivocating "x" by talking about two different locations using the same name?

Different locations. Which proves absolutely nothing and merely allows you to get distracted ( once again, given that you're incapable of doing anything else. )

So when you have sum(x,x) are both of those symbols pointing at an identical location; or at two different locations?

If "x" is "1" then "sum( x, x )" would evaluate to "2".

But you need TWO "1"s for that. You have only one.

Where did you get the 2nd "1" from ?!?

Similarly, if "x" is "1" then "1 = 1" would evaluate to "true".

You can try it in any programming language of your choice.

Here's some JavaScript for you.

Code: Select all

const x = 1;

const sum = ( a, b ) => a + b;

sum( x, x )
2

What? So if I have 1 apple (const x = 1 apple).
And I add that apple to itself I will get two apples?

Are you insane?

Binary functions applied to one and the same variable.

How are you applying a binary function to a singular apple, you fucking idiot?!?

Somehow it works . . .

yeah! Somehow!

Take an apple and add it to itself. See if you get two of them.

But you're a little bit of a retard and take things way too literally. Hence your above example involving adding an apple to itself to create two apples.

OK, so you aren't literally adding x to itself (sum(x,x)? What are you doing then?

The word "identical" means "same".

No it doesn't.

identical means identical.
Same means same.

Those two meanings may be the same, but they are not identical.

It does not mean what you'd like it to mean, i.e. "having the same identity".

I don't care if they have same identity. I care if they have identical identity.

Which they don't.

I have to tell you something. You are probably one of the dumbest people I've ever seen.

I am never the dumbest person in any room you are in.

Go back to school. Learn English language. Then come back.

What does speaking English have to do with being able to think?

Linguistic skills are not identical to thinking skills.

Is this news to you?

This thread is about the Law of Identity. "A = A" ...

A = A is equality, not identity.

You keep confusing them.

But are they?

Yes, they are.

Transport is transport is transport. Law of identity.

Car or bike. All the same.

[Magnus Anderson]

So what's the difference between having identical identities vs having same identities?

None. The word "identical" means "same".

Obviously, I keep pointing out that the point of your dispute is that there is no point.

As I said, you are clueless.

That's not true. Given all criteria for sameness are arbitrary your "same" may or may not be identical to my "same".

You disagreed with my claim that your "A is itself" has the same meaning as "The identity of A is equal to the identity of A".

So this is about how I define the word "same". And I define it the same way as everyone else.

You are free to live in your own universe.

So its meaning of "itself" is the same, but not identical to the meaning of "A"? Fine!

What is the difference between the meaning of "itself" and the meaning of "A"?
You know, since the meaning of "itself" is not identical to the meaning of "A".

Let's put it this way. The word "itself" can denote pretty much anything. It's contextual. However, if someone says "The Earth is itself" then their instance of "itself" refers to the Earth. In your case, your instance of "itself" refers to whatever is referred by your "A".

OK... but if they are merely the same and NOT identical

Learn English language. "Same" and "identical" mean the same thing. Use "have the same identity" or something similar instead.

I didn't ask you what it represents. I asked you what it refers to.

You do understand that representation isn't identical to reference, right?

I am asking you if "itself" refers to the representation "Earth" or if it refers to which is being represented with "Earth".

It represents the Earth. The Earth and the word "Earth" are two different things. That should be obvious. But as you said yourself while looking in the mirror, you're a wanker.