The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Magnus Anderson]

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

I very much do. I never said and I never thought that doubling the pointers doubles the number of apples. That's merely your own invention. You've got nothing to say, so you have to something . . . anything.

Rather, it is you who don't realize that a binary function does not have to reference two different portions of reality. It merely requires two references. And that's why "A = A" is a possible comparison.

https://i.ibb.co/CppWdwkk/sum-func-diagram.png

This image shows very clearly that the inputs of a function are separate from the portions of reality they reference.

There is a portion of reality "x". Then there are inputs "a" and "b". There is an output "r". And finally, there is a portion of reality "y".

The values of these inputs are merely symbolic representations. The function itself does nothing both operate on symbols. Finally, the resulting symbol is converted back to something not-necessarily-symbolic.

The arity of a function, i.e. the number of inputs a function has, is a design choice.

[Skepdick]

Rather, it is you who don't realize that a binary function does not have to reference two different portions of reality. It merely requires two references. And that's why "A = A" is a possible comparison.

https://i.ibb.co/CppWdwkk/sum-func-diagram.png

Look everyone! This feat of human ingenuity has figured out how to add 2 apples to themselves to get 4 apples!

The arity of a function, i.e. the number of inputs a function has, is a design choice.

Great! Design a unary balancing scale. Or a regular balancing scale which clones apples in order to compare them.

The function itself does nothing both operate on symbols.

Magnus, you are the symbol of stupidity.

[Magnus Anderson]

Two different maps are never identical, Idiot.

So you have yet to learn what the word "identical" means?

And every clone has its own identity.

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

Which happens to be irrelevant.

I am not working with representations when I weigh apples on a balancing scales.

I am not comparing maps.

You absolutely are.

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

You have yet to learn what the Law of Identity is about.

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

No comment.

[Magnus Anderson]

Look everyone! This feat of human ingenuity has figured out how to add 2 apples to themselves to get 4 apples!

You're embarrassing yourself.

Fortunately for you, noone is reading this thread.

Great! Design a unary balancing scale. Or a regular balancing scale which clones apples in order to compare them.

Dumb demands are dumb.

Magnus, you are the symbol of stupidity.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Skepdick]

Magnus, you are the symbol of stupidity.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

OK Magnus, you are the symbol of opposing stupidity.

[Skepdick]

Look everyone! This feat of human ingenuity has figured out how to add 2 apples to themselves to get 4 apples!

You're embarrassing yourself.

Cool story bro.

https://ibb.co/Y7wzv73c

[Belinda]

Two different maps are never identical, Idiot.

So you have yet to learn what the word "identical" means?

And every clone has its own identity.

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

Which happens to be irrelevant.

I am not working with representations when I weigh apples on a balancing scales.

I am not comparing maps.

You absolutely are.

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

You have yet to learn what the Law of Identity is about.

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

No comment.

In the absence of time ,space, and force everything is identical to everything else. Or has 'identical' some specialised meaning in mathematics or deductive logic?

Magnus, most here are not mathematicians and don't
know the jargon. You have shown you can wrote plain explicit English.

Let's at least separate off the question of subjective personal identity.

[Magnus Anderson]

In the absence of time ,space, and force everything is identical to everything else. Or has 'identical' some specialised meaning in mathematics or deductive logic?

Magnus, most here are not mathematicians and don't
know the jargon. You have shown you can wrote plain explicit English.

Let's at least separate off the question of subjective personal identity.

I would say that, if there is no time and no space, there is nothing. For something to exist, both time and space must exist. And if there is nothing, there is nothing to compare, nothing to be identical to, and nothing to not be identical to, anything else.

The word "identical" is most commonly used to mean "exactly the same". So if two things are identical, it means that they are exactly alike without ceasing to be two things. They are merely two sets having all of their elements in common. For example, two apples are identical if all of their properties are the same, i.e. color, shape, texture, size, etc. This is how I use the term. It aligns with pretty much all dictionaries.

However, the word is also used to mean "one and the same" or "has the same identity as". In this sense, if two things are identical, it means they are actually one and the same thing. It's not merely that they share all of their properties, they are also the same thing. This concept can be traced back to Leibniz and his "Identity of Indiscernibles" law.

Here's a paraphrasis of the law:

No two distinct things can be exactly alike in all respects. If two entities share all properties, then they are not two things, but one and the same thing.

The mistake that Leibniz made is that he overlooked that 1) we choose what we're comparing, and 2) we can ignore, and thus leave out from the comparison, unique identifiers such as location.

Effectively, he overcomplicated things.

[Skepdick]

The mistake that Leibniz made is that he overlooked that 1) we choose what we're comparing, and 2) we can ignore, and thus leave out from the comparison, unique identifiers such as location.

Lol. Nonsense. Uniqueness is necessary for identity.

Soon as you begin discarding anything you are abstracting away differences which are part of the identities of the things you are comparing.

On your view a triangle is identical to a square if you ignore the extra side.

The very fact you are discerning what similarities to admit; and what differences to discard undermines identity. You could trivially invert this process to admit only differences; while discarding similarities.

[Belinda]

In the absence of time ,space, and force everything is identical to everything else. Or has 'identical' some specialised meaning in mathematics or deductive logic?

Magnus, most here are not mathematicians and don't
know the jargon. You have shown you can wrote plain explicit English.

Let's at least separate off the question of subjective personal identity.

I would say that, if there is no time and no space, there is nothing. For something to exist, both time and space must exist. And if there is nothing, there is nothing to compare, nothing to be identical to, and nothing to not be identical to, anything else.

The word "identical" is most commonly used to mean "exactly the same". So if two things are identical, it means that they are exactly alike without ceasing to be two things. They are merely two sets having all of their elements in common. For example, two apples are identical if all of their properties are the same, i.e. color, shape, texture, size, etc. This is how I use the term. It aligns with pretty much all dictionaries.

However, the word is also used to mean "one and the same" or "has the same identity as". In this sense, if two things are identical, it means they are actually one and the same thing. It's not merely that they share all of their properties, they are also the same thing. This concept can be traced back to Leibniz and his "Identity of Indiscernibles" law.

Here's a paraphrasis of the law:

No two distinct things can be exactly alike in all respects. If two entities share all properties, then they are not two things, but one and the same thing.

The mistake that Leibniz made is that he overlooked that 1) we choose what we're comparing, and 2) we can ignore, and thus leave out from the comparison, unique identifiers such as location.

Effectively, he overcomplicated things.

I agree with Leibnitz. Location and time relative to other monads delivers force and change. One solitary monad is impossible.

[Magnus Anderson]

On your view a triangle is identical to a square if you ignore the extra side.

If you take a square, and ignore one of its sides, you don't get a triangle.

The square must have a diagonal line inside it connecting two of its points and you must ignore 2 sides.

Let's suppose you do that.

You take a square S with a diagonal inside it and compare it to a triangle T.

You ignore the 2 sides of S such that what you're seeing now is a triangle.

Does that mean that the square S is identical to the triangle T?
Of course not.

That would be equivocation fallacy.
Treating two different portions of reality as if they are one and the same.

By ignoring the 2 sides of the square, you've changed what you're comparing. You're no longer comparing the square S. You're now comparing a triangle. A triangle that is a part of the square S.

Thanks for reminding us how prone to equivocation you are.

[Skepdick]

If you take a square, and ignore one of its sides, you don't get a triangle.

The square must have a diagonal line inside it connecting two of its points and you must ignore 2 sides.

Let's suppose you do that.

You take a square S with a diagonal inside it and compare it to a triangle T.

You ignore the 2 sides of S such that what you're seeing now is a triangle.

Does that mean that the square S is identical to the triangle T?
Of course not.

That would be equivocation fallacy.
Treating two different portions of reality as if they are one.

By ignoring the 2 sides of the square, you've changed what you're comparing. You're no longer comparing the square S. You're now comparing a triangle. A triangle that is a part of the square S that you originally started with.

Thanks for reminding us how prone to equivocation you are.

Nonsense.

They are "identical".

You just haven't discarded enough differences.

[Magnus Anderson]

Just keep discarding differences until the triangle and square are "identical".

By ignoring things, you're changing the portion of reality you're comparing. Once you remove a side, you're no longer comparing the square.

But again, equivocation is obviously built into your genes.

[Belinda]

Just keep discarding differences until the triangle and square are "identical".

By ignoring things, you're changing the portion of reality you're comparing. Once you remove a side, you're no longer comparing the square.

But again, equivocation is obviously built into your genes.

Skepdick it's impossible to keep removing attributes until the things are identical. You would not have things in that case, you would have nothing but the idea of identity, like the smile of the Cheshire Cat.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick it's impossible to keep removing attributes until the things are identical. You would not have things in that case, you would have nothing but the idea of identity, like the smile of the Cheshire Cat.

I didn't make the rules. I am just enforcing them. It's precisely because the implication is untenable is why Magnus is wrong.

The mistake that Leibniz made is that he overlooked that 1) we choose what we're comparing, and 2) we can ignore, and thus leave out from the comparison, unique identifiers such as location.