The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Skepdick]

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.

Nonsense. The portion of reality remains identical. Only our selective attention changes.
The objects themselves don't transform just because we choose to focus on certain properties and ignore others.

If we can selectively ignore unique identifiers in making comparisons, then there's no principled limit to what we can ignore.
No rule against what we can't ignore.

Keep leaving out unique identifiers until they are identical.

I didn't make the rules. I am just enforcing them.

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.

[Belinda]

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.

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.

As I said if you keep removing attributes you finish with nothing except the idea a fading memory. It's futile. The Cheshire Cat minus his ears was not the same Cheshire Cat he had been. If the Cheshire Cat climbed the tree a day after Alice spoke to him then he'd not be the individual that argued with Alice, so again not the same CC.

The reason we create bunches of attributes is so we can find patterns that help to predict what is going to happen , where, and when. Then we might avoid the sabre tooth tiger and the Covid virus. The bunches of attributes are social categories not eternal realities.

[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.

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.

As I said if you keep removing attributes you finish with nothing except the idea a fading memory. It's futile. The Cheshire Cat minus his ears was not the same Cheshire Cat he had been. If the Cheshire Cat climbed the tree a day after Alice spoke to him then he'd not be the individual that argued with Alice, so again not the same CC.

The reason we create bunches of attributes is so we can find patterns that help to predict what is going to happen , where, and when. Then we might avoid the sabre tooth tiger and the Covid virus. The bunches of attributes are social categories not eternal realities.

I agree with all of that, but Liebnitz's point was simply that complete indiscernibility implies identity. If you want - it's a necessary precondition for asserting identity.

If we can ignore one identifier, what principled reason is there to not ignore any number of them? The choice of what to ignore and what to pay attention to is determined by other (unspecified) factors. You can, in fact ignore as few or as many of them as you want but at that point we are discussing a weaker notions than identity. Functional equivalence. Contextual equivalence. Whatever - none of those are identity.

If two things are truly identical, there must be no way to tell them apart. Not only that, you must be comfortable in admitting error in thinking there were two of them to begin with. It's a testable/falsifiable principle. Hypothesis - 2 things. Can't discern them? Falsified...

That's why it's such a powerful principle - it takes the subjectivity out of the equation.

[Magnus Anderson]

The objects themselves don't transform just because we choose to focus on certain properties and ignore others.

Noone said they do.

If we can selectively ignore unique identifiers in making comparisons, then there's no principled limit to what we can ignore.
No rule against what we can't ignore.

Exactly. It's an arbitrary thing. You choose what you're going to compare.

I didn't make the rules. I am just enforcing them.

Yes, you are enforcing them. Incorrectly.

You don't really understand what's being said.

[popeye1945]

Identity is a subjective experience dependent upon the biology doing the experiencing, nothing has identity which is not bestowed upon it by biological experience, biological consciousness. All is energy, vibrations, and frequencies, which is then a biologically readout through consciousness of apparent reality. We know there is no sound or color in the real world. Apparent reality as stated above is a biological readout, and according to science, the ultimate reality, the real world is a place of no things. To change the perception of the identity of an object, one has to add to it or subtract from it, or rearrange it from its initial perception. Identifying is dependent upon the energies present and the state of the given biology, in other words, an emergent property of the conscious subject. The identity of an object does not change if its changes go unperceived. When things get worn, they change yet retain their identity. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Identity has to do with form, not function, and an object can lose its function yet retain its identity, not so with form. Form and function determine the fitness/identity of an object/organism to its environment context, and form defines function.

[Skepdick]

Exactly. It's an arbitrary thing. You choose what you're going to compare.

Exactly!

I am arbitrarily choosing to compare only the things which make squares and triangles identical.
I am arbitrarily choosing to ignore all the things which make squares and triangles non-identical.

Yes, you are enforcing them. Incorrectly.

Really? My arbitrary-choosing is incorrect, but your arbitrary-choosing is correct?

There is no "correct"; or "incorrect" way to apply an arbitrary process. That's why it's arbitrary!

You don't really understand what's being said.

Shame, you are always misunderstood - never simply wrong.

I am ignoring, and thus leaving out from the comparison, unique identifiers which makes squares and triangles non-identical!

2) we can ignore, and thus leave out from the comparison, unique identifiers such as location.

When you disagree with immanent critique you are disagreeing with yourself.

Bite the bullet and accept the implications; or admit you are wrong.

[Belinda]

Exactly. It's an arbitrary thing. You choose what you're going to compare.

Exactly!

I am arbitrarily choosing to compare only the things which make squares and triangles identical.
I am arbitrarily choosing to ignore all the things which make squares and triangles non-identical.

Yes, you are enforcing them. Incorrectly.

Really? My arbitrary-choosing is incorrect, but your arbitrary-choosing is correct?

There is no "correct"; or "incorrect" way to apply an arbitrary process. That's why it's arbitrary!

You don't really understand what's being said.

Shame, you are always misunderstood - never simply wrong.

I am ignoring, and thus leaving out from the comparison, unique identifiers which makes squares and triangles non-identical!

2) we can ignore, and thus leave out from the comparison, unique identifiers such as location.

When you disagree with immanent critique you are disagreeing with yourself.

Bite the bullet and accept the implications; or admit you are wrong.

But the definitions of squares and triangles are necessary aspects of mathematics. Squares and triangles are ultimately definable by reason of their nomic existence as mathematics. A deductive system such as mathematics is complete in itself and can't added to or subtracted from.

Mathematics proves by deductive reasoning that a thing is one monad and not another monad. Mathematics when applied to practical measurement is analogous to use of a foot rule or a pair of compasses; a fixed system. The foot rule and the pair of compasses are theoretically correct with no loose screws or smudged numerals.

Within mathematics therefore no two things can be exactly alike. Things that are alike in all their properties are the same thing. However for practical purposes two things can be alike enough in their properties for practical purposes.

[Skepdick]

But the definitions of squares and triangles are necessary aspects of mathematics. Squares and triangles are ultimately definable by reason of their nomic existence as mathematics. A deductive system such as mathematics is complete in itself and can't added to or subtracted from.

Mathematics proves by deductive reasoning that a thing is one monad and not another monad. Mathematics when applied to practical measurement is analogous to use of a foot rule or a pair of compasses; a fixed system. The foot rule and the pair of compasses are theoretically correct with no loose screws or smudged numerals.

Within mathematics therefore no two things can be exactly alike. Things that are alike in all their properties are the same thing. However for practical purposes two things can be alike enough in their properties for practical purposes.

None of this matters on Magnus's conception of "identity". You can choose to ignore any unique identifiers. In so doing he is weakening the very concept of identity to mere similarity.

For some practical purpose Triangles are functionally equivalent to Squares.

They are both Euclidian geometric shapes.
They are both closed forms comprised of straight lines e.g polygons.
They both have at least 3 sides; and at least 3 angles.

It becomes a fuzzy, not a strict match. This is how he equivocates "identity".

[Magnus Anderson]

I am arbitrarily choosing to compare only the things which make squares and triangles identical.

You have to choose what you're going to compare.

If you choose to compare a square that has a diagonal inside of it to a circle, you have to compare every element that belongs to the square to every element that belongs to the circle. If you ignore some of the elements in the process, you will end up making a mistake resulting in incorrect results. For example, since the square consists of 4 sides, you are expected to take into account all 4 sides. Both shapes must have 4 sides ni order to be identical. If they do not, they are not identical. But if you ignore 2 of them, in order to make the square look like a triangle, so that your comparison can give you "They are identical" result, that would be a mistake, and as a consequence, your results will be incorrect.

If you want to change what you're comparing, that's perfectly fine. You do that by taking one step back. Perhaps you no longer want to compare a square with a diagonal in it. Instead, you want to compare a triangle that is inside of it. If that's the case, you stop the current process of comparison. You then ignore the 2 sides and the diagonal and RESTART the process of comparison.

Choosing what to compare involves selection but selection is not always done with that particular aim in mind. It can also be done to game the process, i.e. to fix the results.

You have a problem distinguishing the two.

You have to choose before you can compare. You have no choice in the mater. If you want to compare 2 apples, you have to choose 2 apples as your objects of comparison. Once you're done doing that, and you want to compare something else, e.g. 2 cars, you have to ignore those 2 apples and choose 2 cars as your objects of comparison. And once you choose and start comparing, you are NOT free to ignore whatever you want. If you're comparing cars, you must be comparing cars. You are not free to merely compare the wheels.

And the fact that you're not comparing the identities of two things does not mean you don't know they are 2 different things. It also does not mean you will end up confusing them.

[Skepdick]

You have to choose what you're going to compare.

I did.

I'll compare everything that makes them identical; and nothing that makes them non-identical.

How many times do you want me to say it?

Choosing what to compare involves selection but selection is not always done with that particular aim in mind.

Selection always has an aim in mind. Why are you discarding any uniqueness identifiers? What's your aim?

You have to choose before you can compare. You have no choice in the mater.

I did. I told you:

1. I am going to compare everything that makes them identical.
2. I am not going to compare anything that makes them non-identical.

If you want to compare 2 apples, you have to choose 2 apples as your objects of comparison.

I am going to compare everything that makes the two apples identical.
I am not going to compare anything that makes the two apples non-identical.

If you're comparing cars, you must be comparing cars. You are not free to merely compare the wheels.

I am going to compare everything that makes the two cars identical.
I am not going to compare anything that makes the two cars non-identical.

If the wheels are identical - I'll compare them.
if the wheels are not identical - I won't compare them.

And the fact that you're not comparing the identities of two things does not mean you don't know they are 2 different things. It also does not mean you will end up confusing them.

I am not confusing anything. I am simply pointing out your notion of "identity" is confused.

[Magnus Anderson]

Really? My arbitrary-choosing is incorrect, but your arbitrary-choosing is correct?

Exactly.

Arbitrary choosings aren't made equal. Some are legitimate, some are illegitimate. Mine happens to be legitimate. Yours happens to be a misinterpretation of mine. You misinterpret mine as being of illegitimate kind.

Once you begin the process of comparison, which is to say, once you choose what you're comparing, you no longer have the freedom to choose what you're comparing without first abandoning the current process of comparison.

You're arbitrarily choosing what to compare DURING the process of comparison.

You've chosen to compare a square to a triangle. And during the process of comparison, you've decided to forget that you're comparing a square and act as if you're comparing a triangle so that you can fix the results.

You commit the mistake of conflating two different portions of reality that I do not commit ( a mistake similar to that of equivocation fallacy. )

You compared a triangle to a triangle, and because the first triangle is a part of the square that you initially started comparing, you decided to conclude that the square is identical to the triangle.

That's bad thinking. And it's not me who's doing it.

[Skepdick]

Really? My arbitrary-choosing is incorrect, but your arbitrary-choosing is correct?

Exactly.

Arbitrary choosings aren't made equal. Some are legitimate, some are illegitimate. Mine happens to be legitimate. Yours happens to be a misinterpretation of mine. You misinterpret mine as being of illegitimate kind.

I've made no claims as to legitimacy or illegitimacy. I am just doing what you are doing.

You are the one insisting that there's a difference in legitimacy.

Cry me a double standard.

Once you begin the process of comparison, which is to say, once you choose what you're comparing, you no longer have the freedom to choose what you're comparing without first abandoning the current process of comparison.

Which is perfect! Because I made my methodology explicit:

I WILL (future tense) compare everything that makes the two things identical.
I WILL NOT compare anything which makes the two things non-identical.

You're arbitrarily choosing what to compare DURING the process of comparison.

Why are you lying? I made my methodology explicit before the start!

I WILL compare everything that makes the two things identical.
I WILL NOT compare anything which makes the two things non-identical.

You've chosen to compare a square to a triangle. And during the process of comparison, you've decided to forget that you're comparing a square and act as if you're comparing a triangle so that you can fix the results.

Why are you lying? I am comparing two things. Irrespective what they are.

You commit the mistake of conflating two different portions of reality that I do not commit ( a mistake similar to that of equivocation fallacy. )

Cry me another double standard. You insisted that you are comparing the contents of two different portions of reality.

That's exactly what I am doing.

You compared a triangle to a triangle, and because the first triangle is a part of the square that you initially started comparing, you decided to conclude that the square is identical to the triangle.

That's bad thinking. And it's not me who's doing it.

Bullshit. I am comparing two portions of reality. One happens to contain a triangle. The other happens to contain a square.

And given my arbitrary criteria for identity - the contents of the two portions of reality are identical.

[Magnus Anderson]

I'll compare everything that makes them identical; and nothing that makes them non-identical.

How many times do you want me to say it?

Zero. You're not saying anything remotely intelligent. Merely one silly objection after objection.

You're free to select what they have in common. But note that, unless they are identical, this means selecting different portions of reality. You won't be comparing apple A to apple B but perhaps a portion of apple A to a portion of apple B. Since the two portions are identical, you will end up concluding they are identical. But then, it would be a mistake to conclude that, just because they are identical, it also follows that their supersets, A and B, are also identical. That does not follow. That is the mistake you're making. It's called "equivocation fallacy". You're extremely prone it. And because you're extremely prone it, and because you're not aware it's a mistake, you think it's a perfectly valid logical consequence. But it is not . . .

The problem is with YOU.

[Skepdick]

I'll compare everything that makes them identical; and nothing that makes them non-identical.

How many times do you want me to say it?

Zero. You're not saying anything remotely intelligent. Merely one silly objection after objection.

Buddy, all I am saying is the implication of YOUR concept.

If it's not "remotely intelligent" that's all your fault.

You're free to select what they have in common.

I know that. You said I can discard any unique identifiers.

When I discard all unique identifiers all that will be left is the non-unique identifiers: that which they have in common!

But note that, unless they are identical

They will be. I'll make sure of it.

I will select all the things that make them identical and discard all the things that make them non-identical.

this means selecting different portions of reality. You won't be comparing apple A to apple B but perhaps a portion of apple A to a portion of apple B. Since the two portions are identical, you will end up concluding they are identical. But then, it would be a mistake to conclude that, just because they are identical

It makes no difference what I am comparing.

I will select all the things that make them identical and discard all the things that make them non-identical.

it also follows that their supersets, A and B, are also identical. That does not follow.

Why not? If you ignore enough of their uniqueness identifiers they are identical.

That is the mistake you're making.

I am making a mistake in executing your methodology?!? Why are you lying?

The problem is with YOU.

But I am just offering immanent critique!

If the problem is with ME then the problem is with YOU.

If you are rejecting the logical consequences of your own position that's the same as rejecting your own position!

[Ben JS]

To OP:

In a 4D model, time is a coordinate. In that model, objects have extension in all four dimensions and do not change. Your expression of measuring at a different time is the same as measuring an object at a different place. The front and rear bumpers of a bus are different, but they're both part of one object, the bus.

100% - I'll now echo this sentiment in a long winded, less apt way.

-

The dimensions of a thing are the minimal number of coordinates required to identify it's location / size.

You can make a cross section of an apple through time, or through any of it's other dimensions.
Cross sections of an apple along it's y axis are different than each other,
as cross sections of the apple along it's time axis.

In an instant of time (a point along that axis), an apple has 3 spatial dimensions.
This means it extends across those axes (height, width, depth), and it's bounds/scope/area are the ranges by which it extends.

The apple stem is not identical to the apple core -
meaning two sets of spatial coordinates that the apple occupies are different (even at the smallest cross section of time).
Cross sections of an apple are different than other cross sections, but the entirety of the apple remains unchanged.

The apple also extends across the axis/dimension of time, as it does it's spatial dimensions.
Whilst it has changes along time, just as it has changes along all of it's spatial dimensions,
the entirety of the 4D apple remains unchanged even as we compare sections of that object within it's bounds -
just as comparing sections of the apple's spatial dimensions in a moment does not change it's entire spatial state.

If the definition of the object includes it extending across time,
then the apple's deviations along that axis have already been accounted for,
and to the 4D apple - time has nothing further to say (than contributing to it's shape / area).

-

Yes, we draw lines in the sand in the interests of utility.
Defining an apple as containing/being both a core and stem, even though they are different,
is useful to us - just as defining an apple as having a temporal existence is useful.
(even though that apple changes over the span of time)

TL;DR

3D apple (time a) = 3D apple (time a)
3D apple (time a) != 3D apple (time b)
3D apple != 4D apple
4D apple = 4D apple