The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Skepdick]

I do. But you don't understand what understand and what I do not.

Oh, I have a good-enough approximation.

[Magnus Anderson]

You don't even understand the difference between comparing apples; and comparing maps of apples?

Have you ever directly compared anything other than maps of reality?
For example, have you ever directly compared 2 apples rather than 2 maps of apples?

Take into account that everything you see with your own eyes is a map of reality. It's not reality itself. It's a map constructed by your brain using an internal visual language and whatever information was available to it at the time. You never see the territory directly. You see it indirectly through the visual map sent to you by your brain.

Let me try to be as obnoxious as you are.
Do not conflate the identity of the map with the identity of the territory.

Another thing.

Your goal is to determine whether an apple is identical to itself.
There is actually no need for you to directly observe an apple at all in order to do that.

Have you ever heard of indirect perception? Have you ever heard of something called thinking? The ability to perceive things without looking at them? Obviously, you haven't. You're a non-thinker. Either a thing is in front of your eyes and you can touch it or it does not exist.

All you have to do is construct two accurate maps of the same apple and simply compare these maps. If your maps are accurate maps then comparing them would be akin to comparing the apples themselves. What they say about these apples is what these apples are.

But here's the most important bit.
You do not even have to map any apples.

Purely by thinking alone, without ever mapping any portion of reality, you can figure out that every portion of reality is identical to itself.

I'll show you how.

1) An oxymoron is a symbol of the form, "X and not X".

2) Nothing can be represented by an oxymoron because nothing can represent the impossible demand of being X and not X.

3) Let X be a portion of reality. Let A be an accurate description of that portion of reality. Thus, we can say, X is A. If X is not itself, it means that X is not A. What this means is that X is A and not A at the same time and that means we're claiming that it can be represented by an oxymoron. But according to ( 2 ), that's not possible.

It's not that difficult.

But then, when your mind is stuck in the empiricist cave, such things are extremely difficult.

You have no choice but to says extremely stupid things such as "You have to stop the time so that you can observe the state of the apple at that single moment", "You have to duplicate the apple so that you can compare it to itself and you also have to make sure that the duplicated apple is the same apple as the one you duplicated it from" and "You have to add an apple to itself to get 2 apples".

It's literally like claiming, "You can't know anything about the past because in order to know anything about the past you have to time-travel back to the past which is impossible."

It's called being a retard who's completely blind to his own ridiculous level of retardation.

[Belinda]

*Time and space are the only means by which we measure change.

* Nothing physically exits that is not measurable.

*An apple , for instance, physically and singularly exists (is identifiable) iff it's quantifiable by time -and-space.

* The law of identity is refuted by change over time-and-space.
-------------------------------------------
mathematics and formal logic are for nothing more than confirming empirical data.

Sure, each of these reasonings , empirical or rational, is a frame, a 'map of reality'. Nobody is denying it's an epistemological matter. We cannot however live without empirical reasoning.

[Skepdick]

Have you ever directly compared anything other than maps of reality?
For example, have you ever directly compared 2 apples rather than 2 maps of apples?

Yeah. I put them on a balancing scale and compare their weight.

Try doing that with one apple.

Idiot.

[Magnus Anderson]

mathematics and formal logic are for nothing more than confirming empirical data.

At every moment in time, the environment that immediately surrounds you is exerting certain pressure on your senses. Without some sort of language, your brain can't really feel this pressure. And without logic and mathematics, you can't see beyond what immediately surrounds you, e.g. you can't see a three-dimensional space with three-dimensional objects in it. Further, if you're not strong at logic, you can't properly interpret empirical data and you have a weak defense against logical mistakes.

* The law of identity is refuted by change over time-and-space.

It isn't. Even ChatGPT will tell you that.

Wizard22's argument is based on conflating identity with absolute permanence and denying identity based on change over time. However, the Law of Identity (A is A) does not require an object to be frozen in time—it simply states that at any given moment, an object is itself.

Noax makes the best counterpoints, pointing out that identity is a tautology and that practical identity (such as calling an apple the same apple) is a useful abstraction. He correctly distinguishes between state changes and the concept of identity itself.

The discussion reflects a common misunderstanding: assuming identity requires stasis. Identity does not mean unchanging existence but rather self-consistency at any given moment.

[Magnus Anderson]

Yeah. I put them on a balancing scale and compare their weight.

What do these numbers have to do with the apples themselves? Sure, they represent their weights but they are not apples themselves, aren't they? You are not looking at apples, Skeppie. You're looking at numbers. And even then, you're seeing maps of these numbers constructed by your brain, not numbers themselves.

Get outside of your direct realist cave, Skeppie.

[Skepdick]

Yeah. I put them on a balancing scale and compare their weight.

What do these numbers have to do with the apples themselves? Sure, they represent their weights but they are not apples themselves, aren't they? You are not looking at apples, Skeppie. You're looking at numbers. And even then, you're seeing maps of these numbers constructed by your brain, not numbers themselves.

Get outside of your direct realist cave, Skeppie.

What numbers, idiot? Do you even know how a balancing scale works?

[Belinda]

mathematics and formal logic are for nothing more than confirming empirical data.

At every moment in time, the environment that immediately surrounds you is exerting certain pressure on your senses. Without some sort of language, your brain can't really feel this pressure. And without logic and mathematics, you can't see beyond what immediately surrounds you, e.g. you can't see a three-dimensional space with three-dimensional objects in it. Further, if you're not strong at logic, you can't properly interpret empirical data and you have a weak defense against logical mistakes.

* The law of identity is refuted by change over time-and-space.

It isn't. Even ChatGPT will tell you that.

Wizard22's argument is based on conflating identity with absolute permanence and denying identity based on change over time. However, the Law of Identity (A is A) does not require an object to be frozen in time—it simply states that at any given moment, an object is itself.

Noax makes the best counterpoints, pointing out that identity is a tautology and that practical identity (such as calling an apple the same apple) is a useful abstraction. He correctly distinguishes between state changes and the concept of identity itself.

The discussion reflects a common misunderstanding: assuming identity requires stasis. Identity does not mean unchanging existence but rather self-consistency at any given moment.

Formal deductive logic is not inductive logic.I am not very good at either but I do know the difference and I know I need to be more rigorous in appliying both of them.

You endorse Noax:
"Noax makes the best counterpoints, pointing out that identity is a tautology and that practical identity (such as calling an apple the same apple) is a useful abstraction. He correctly distinguishes between state changes and the concept of identity itself."

I understand and also endorse Noax.

Concerning " at any given moment an object is itself" is thought experiment where we pretend there is such an entity as a moment. Moments are vague bits of time and time is a convenient measurement ,not reality but a map of reality abstracted from reality.If there were such a reality as a given moment then we could say the experiment is a real experiment not a thought experiment.

[Magnus Anderson]

What numbers, idiot? Do you even know how a balancing scale works?

Oh, it's a balancing scale, not a digital one. That makes a difference, doesn't it? There are no numbers, so you must be looking at apples themselves rather than something else, e.g. weights? And it also helps you magically transcend the limitations of indirect realism, doesn't it? You're no longer dealing with maps of reality, you're dealing with reality itself.

[Magnus Anderson]

Concerning " at any given moment an object is itself" is thought experiment where we pretend there is such an entity as a moment. Moments are vague bits of time and time is a convenient measurement ,not reality but a map of reality abstracted from reality.If there were such a reality as a given moment then we could say the experiment is a real experiment not a thought experiment.

Alright, that's an opinion of yours. And I respect that. And I could say a thing or two in response but I prefer not to because I want to stay as close to the topic at hand as possible. I don't want to go off-topic too much. Or is it on-topic and I am just not seeing it? If it is, how does it relate to the Law of Identity?

[Skepdick]

Oh, it's a balancing scale, not a digital one. That makes a difference, doesn't it? There are no numbers, so you must be looking at apples themselves rather than something else, e.g. weights? And it also helps you magically transcend the limitations of indirect realism, doesn't it? You're no longer dealing with maps of reality, you're dealing with reality itself.

You are trying too hard to be a fucking idiot. And you are succeeding.

[Magnus Anderson]

You are trying too hard to be a fucking idiot. And you are succeeding.

And I can tell you no longer have anything to say.

[Skepdick]

And I can tell you no longer have anything to say.

What more needs to be said to a fucking idiot?

[Magnus Anderson]

What more needs to be said to a fucking idiot?

Defend your position. Or maybe it's better than you don't?

[Belinda]

Concerning " at any given moment an object is itself" is thought experiment where we pretend there is such an entity as a moment. Moments are vague bits of time and time is a convenient measurement ,not reality but a map of reality abstracted from reality.If there were such a reality as a given moment then we could say the experiment is a real experiment not a thought experiment.

Alright, that's an opinion of yours. And I respect that. And I could say a thing or two in response but I prefer not to because I want to stay as close to the topic at hand as possible. I don't want to go off-topic too much. Or is it on-topic and I am just not seeing it? If it is, how does it relate to the Law of Identity?

That time is subjective, i.e. a system for measuring, implies that "any given moment" is a thought abstracted from the idea of time. There is no concrete thing such as any given moment therefor its status is that of a thought experiment.

The Law of Identity , in plain English, and as the general principle, is that in order to exist in a temporal relative world no concrete thing or event can be identical with another thing.
The particular example of 'a moment in time' must pertain to the general principle that no two events can both exist and be identical with each other.

However from the point of view of eternity i.e. timelessness, all events , all experiences, exist simultaneously. Past and future are temporal categories so from the point of view of eternity (timelessness) past and future are one. NB this does not imply a theistic God who harbours conscious intentions, final causes.

While the perspective from eternity and the perspective from the relative temporal world can coexist in the same brain/mind, to agree with the proposition that two unitary apples are simply 1 apple+ 1apple = 2 apples is to confuse mathematics with both temporal and eternal reality.