The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Skepdick]

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

What position, idiot? Attacking? Defending? What mind-game are you playing with yourself?

Are you larping as Don Quixote?

[Magnus Anderson]

What position, idiot? Attacking? Defending? What mind-game are you playing with yourself?

Are you larping as Don Quixote?

So you actually don't have any position?

[Skepdick]

So you actually don't have any position?

What "position" do I need to expose the fact that you are wrong; and point out exactly how and why?

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

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.

I disagree.

My views on time

1. Time is not subjective.

2. A system for measuring time isn't time itself. Two different things.

3. To say that something is subjective is to say that its existence depends on the existence of minds. In other words, if there are no minds, there are no subjective things.

4. Time is more fundamental than change. If there is no time, there is no change. But if there is no change, there can be time.

5. Time and space are interdependent. If there is no time, there is no space. And if there is no space, there is no time.

6. If time cannot exist without minds, it follows that space and change cannot exist without minds either.

7. A moment in time is the shortest period of time.

8. A period of time is a set of adjacent moments in time. It is made out of 1 or more moments in time.

9. There can be no such thing as time without moments in time. Time is nothing but a sequence of moments.

The Law of Identity

As far as the Law of Identity is concerned, it is simply saying that every portion of reality is identical to itself.

A portion of reality does not have to be a single moment in time. It can span across time. For example, a portion of reality can be someone's sex during some period of time, e.g. during February 2024. "A = A" in this instance means "Someone's sex during February 2024 changed the way their sex changed during February 2024."

The Law of Identity is not saying that the state of a thing at one moment is the same as the state of that same thing at every other moment of its existence. That's just a misunderstanding, nothing else.

[Magnus Anderson]

So you actually don't have any position?

What "position" do I need to expose the fact that you are wrong; and point out exactly how and why?

Your position regarding the Law of Identity which you have never fully presented ( something you never do. ) You object but you rarely present full arguments.

But more specifically, I was talking about your position regarding the possibility of comparing a thing to itself.

[Magnus Anderson]

Take a look at this, Skeppie. Did you address it? Of course not.

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?

You seriously think that putting 2 apples on a balancing scale and comparing their weight is directly comparing 2 apples rather than 2 maps of apples?

Are you a direct realist, Skeppie?

Do you think that we can observe reality without constructing a representation / map of it?

[Magnus Anderson]

You adamantly claim that a thing cannot be compared to itself because comparison is a binary function that involves 2 things rather than 1.

And while it is true that it's a binary function, it's not true that it requires 2 different portions of reality. A binary function merely requires 2 arguments or inputs. Each argument is allowed to point to one and the same portion of reality. Each input is allowed to be connected to one and the same portion of reality.

You think that we can DIRECTLY compare 2 apples. But in reality, nothing is ever observed or compared directly. Observation is indirect. And so is comparison. It involves constructing a map of whatever we're trying to observe. And when we compare things, we compare the maps that we constructed of them.

Comparing the maps is comparing the mapped objects themselves insofar the maps are accurate representations of the mapped objects.

Based on the mistaken notion that a thing cannot be compared to itself, you probably argue -- and I say probably because it's only my guess, you've never stated it clearly yourself -- that "A = A" is either an impossible operation or that the two different A's point to two different portion of reality. If it's the latter, you probably argue that it's necessarily false because no two portions of reality have the same identity ( even though the Law of Identity, in spite of its name, is not about identity equality. )

[Skepdick]

Are you a direct realist, Skeppie?

I am nothing other than myself, Magnus. That's how identity works.

Philosophical labels are for idiots who haven't figured that out yet.

Do you think that we can observe reality without constructing a representation / map of it?

Don't give a shit. I advocate for anti-representationalism.

The imaginary apples on the imaginary balancing scale (as projected into my consciousness by the Matrix) which tip one way or the other are a demonstration of a binary function. You can't perform this function with one apple.

You know, because comparing things is a cognitive function. And this cognitive function requires two resources to compare.
The same way the balancing scale doesn't work with one apple - your brain don't work with one thing to "compare"

That's why you can't compare yourself to yourself.

[Belinda]

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.

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.

I disagree.

My views on time

1. Time is not subjective.

2. A system for measuring time isn't time itself. Two different things.

3. To say that something is subjective is to say that its existence depends on the existence of minds. In other words, if there are no minds, there are no subjective things.

4. Time is more fundamental than change. If there is no time, there is no change. But if there is no change, there can be time.

5. Time and space are interdependent. If there is no time, there is no space. And if there is no space, there is no time.

6. If time cannot exist without minds, it follows that space and change cannot exist without minds either.

7. A moment in time is the shortest period of time.

8. A period of time is a set of adjacent moments in time. It is made out of 1 or more moments in time.

9. There can be no such thing as time without moments in time. Time is nothing but a sequence of moments.

The Law of Identity

As far as the Law of Identity is concerned, it is simply saying that every portion of reality is identical to itself.

A portion of reality does not have to be a single moment in time. It can span across time. For example, a portion of reality can be someone's sex during some period of time, e.g. during February 2024. "A = A" in this instance means "Someone's sex during February 2024 changed the way their sex changed during February 2024."

The Law of Identity is not saying that the state of a thing at one moment is the same as the state of that same thing at every other moment of its existence. That's just a misunderstanding, nothing else.

Thank you for your lucid exposition.

Concerning
1. I disagree; time is subjective. Reality is subjective and time is an attribute that's abstracted from phenomenal reality.

2.A system for measuring time is what time does. A clock measures how long it takes for any regular event to happen ; a clock may be a sundial or some woman's menstrual cycle. Time has no essence until it does what it does.


3. I agree.

4. Eternity is a state of no change. It follows that not only space and time don't pertain to eternity but also that no differentiated event or concept whatsoever pertains to eternity. One may think of eternity as potential energy as if bursting with possibility.

Temporality is secondary to change itself, because temporality is one of many attributes of existence all of which are secondary to change.

5.I agree

6. The meaning of a word is its use.

7.How one differentiates between one moment and another moment is either subjective or a sociolinguistic consensus.

8.But differentiating between one moment and another moment is subjective, according to what clock one is using, or the differentiation may be also be sociolinguistic.

9. As 8.

Concerning what you wrote about the Law of Identity,thanks .I needed to know what it is.
It seems that every portion of reality is identical to itself because of constant correlation of selected and specified events. But as with causal determinism it's impossible to eliminate the possibility that the correlations won't inevitably correlate .All swans are white until a black swan appear.

[Skepdick]

You adamantly claim that a thing cannot be compared to itself because comparison is a binary function that involves 2 things rather than 1.

And while it is true that it's a binary function, it's not true that it requires 2 different portions of reality. A binary function merely requires 2 arguments or inputs. Each argument is allowed to point to one and the same portion of reality.

OK, so put both arguments (which point to one and the same apple) on both sides of the balancing scale then.

Fucking retard. Still doesn't grasp that doubling the pointers to an apple doesn't double the number of apples.

I have $1 and $1.

No, I don't have $2. I have $1 referenced twice.

[Magnus Anderson]

I am nothing other than myself, Magnus. That's how identity works.

Philosophical labels are for idiots who haven't figured that out yet.

So you're not going to answer the question?

Don't give a shit. I advocate for anti-representationalism.

Okay, so you're an anti-representationalist.

The imaginary apples on the imaginary balancing scale (as projected into my consciousness by the Matrix) which tip one way or the other are a demonstration of a binary function. You can't perform this function with one apple.

You know, because comparing things is a cognitive function. And this cognitive function requires two resources to compare.
The same way the balancing scale doesn't work with one apple - your brain don't work with one thing to "compare"

That's why you can't compare yourself to yourself.

As I told you, you can compare an apple against itself because you can create two maps of the same apple.

If the two maps are accurate representations of the same apple, then comparing them would be the same as comparing the apples themselves.

And even when you're comparing 2 different apples, you're still comparing their maps. There is no such thing as direct representationless comparison.

But then, you're an anti-representationalist, so I have to argue against that now.

[Skepdick]

So you're not going to answer the question?

I am not a direct realist.
I am also not not a direct realist.

Okay, so you're an anti-representationalist.

I am not an anti-representationalist.
I am also not not an anti-representationalist.

As I told you, you can compare an apple against itself because you can create two maps of the same apple.

Can you compare a map of an apple ot itself without creating two of them?

If the two maps are accurate representations of the same apple

And how would you compare the representation to the apple to determine if it's "accurate"?

And even when you're comparing 2 different apples, you're still comparing their maps.

So which way would the balancing scale tilt towards? Towards the apple or towards the map of the apple?

[Magnus Anderson]

And even when you're comparing 2 different apples, you're still comparing their maps. There is no such thing as direct representationless comparison.

Your body has a direct contact only with that which immediately surrounds it.

When you're looking at 2 apples with the aim to determine whether or not they are identical, they are at certain distance away from you; in other words, they do not immediately surround you.

What immediately surrounds you is light and it is based on light that immediately surrounds you that your brain constructs a 3D map of the space that surrounds you. Your brain has to apply reasoning not only to what is detected by your senses as immediately surrounding you, but also, it has to take into account your existing beliefs. Without that, your brain wouldn't be able to distinguish between a real apple and a cardboard apple. All in all, by applying reasoning to sensory information and your existing beliefs, your brain constructs a 3D map of the surrounding environment.

So whenever you're comparing 2 apples, you're actually comparing their maps.

[Magnus Anderson]

I am not a direct realist.
I am also not not a direct realist.

I am not an anti-representationalist.
I am also not not an anti-representationalist.

Right, you're an oxymoron.

Can you compare a map of an apple ot itself without creating two of them?

You're a master of asking stupid questions.

If you have map A, and you want to compare it to itself, you have to create 2 accurate maps of it, call them B and C, and compare them. If B and C are identical, then, because B and C are accurate maps of A, it follows that A is identical to itself.

A binary function must have 2 inputs. If it does not have 2 inputs then it's not a binary function but an unary one. The fact that it has 2 inputs, however, does not mean that these inputs must be connected to 2 different portions of reality. They can also be connected to one and the same portion of reality. Computer programmers do it all the time.

And how would you compare the representation to the apple to determine if it's "accurate"?

Again, a master of asking stupid questions.

How do you know that what you're looking at is an accurate representation of reality?

How do you know that when you compare 2 different things, that you're comparing accurate maps of these things?

Does that mean it's impossible to compare any two things?

Are we going to sidetrack this discussion merely because you have nothing intelligent to say?

The proof that A equals A does not involve comparing maps of reality. I've already presented this proof. But of course, you ignored it.

So which way would the balancing scale tilt towards? Towards the apple or towards the map of the apple?

It seems like you've spent all of your life training how to raise stupid objections.

[Skepdick]

If you have map A, and you want to compare it to itself

...you can't.

, you have to create 2 accurate maps of it

...that's why you have to clone your resources. And every clone has its own identity.

, call them B and C, and compare them. If B and C are identical, then, because B and C are accurate maps of A, it follows that A is identical to itself.

Two different maps are never identical, Idiot. Not to mention that map A was made before maps B and C so even their ages aren't identical.

A binary function must have 2 inputs. If it does not have 2 inputs then it's not a binary function but an unary one.

...that's why you have to clone your resources. And every clone has its own identity.

The fact that it has 2 inputs, however, does not mean that these inputs must be connected to 2 different portions of reality. They can also be connected to one and the same portion of reality. Computer programmers do it all the time.

Ever looked at how computers perform identity checks in memory? If x and y have the same memory address - then they are identical.

Pointer address/location.

How do you know that what you're looking at is an accurate representation of reality?

What a stupid fucking question. I am not working with representations when I weigh apples on a balancing scales.

How do you know that when you compare 2 different things, that you're comparing accurate maps of these things?

What a stupid fucking questions. I am not comparing maps.

The proof that A equals A does not involve comparing maps of reality. I've already presented this proof. But of course, you ignored it.

You did? You put one apple on both sides of the balancing scale? Wow!

It seems like you've spent all of your life training how to raise stupid objections.

Magnus, your mom must have gotten fucked by the stupid-train from Clowntown to give birth to you.