The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Magnus Anderson]

I have absolutely no idea why you think I've ever offered you a definition of the word "identical".

You didn't.

But you did say, "my arbitrary criteria for identity".

That means you're doing the equality check your own way that has nothing to do with mine.

[Magnus Anderson]

So now you are talking about identity? I thought you weren't.

You get confused precisely because you don't take English language seriously enough.
As a consequence of that, you end up misunderstanding what other people are saying.

In English language, the word "identical" means "same". It does not mean "has the same identity as".

Sameness and identity are two different things.

I am talking about sameness, not identity.

[Magnus Anderson]

It depends on what you mean by "=". You are using it multiple senses.

Actually, I'm using it in only one sense.

I'm using it in the sense of "equal", "same" and "identical".
Four different symbols, one meaning.

I'm using it precisely the way it is used in set theory.
Two sets A and B are equal, i.e. A = B, if and only if they share all of their elements.

"A = B" means "The portion of reality indicated by A has the same content ( i.e. elements ) as the portion of reality indicated by B."

It may follow. Depending on which sense of "=" you are using.

It does not follow.

And that's your issue. You don't understand how I'm using the equals sign. But given how stubborn and dogmatic you are, it's very difficult for you to see it, so instead, you end up projecting your own mistake onto me.

When you stop equivocating "=" you might unconfuse yourself.

When you stop spending 99.99% of your energy defending yourself, and start carefully listening to what other people are saying, you might unconfuse yourself.

Did you miscommunicate your methodology? That's your fault.

It absolutely is. Nothing is ever your fault. It'd be insane to expect from a person such as you to see that on your own. So of course, it is my fault. I take the full responsibility.

You are a special fucking snowflake who can't admit error.

Talking to the mirror again.

[Skepdick]

I have absolutely no idea why you think I've ever offered you a definition of the word "identical".

You didn't.

But you did say, "my arbitrary criteria for identity".

That means you're doing the equality check your own way that has nothing to do with mine.

Why are you lying? My arbitrary criteria are identical to your arbitrary criteria. That's how immanent critique works!

I am using "identical" in the sense you specified.

The word "identical" does not mean "has the same identity as". It simply means "exactly the same".

I have chosen to compare a triangle to a square.

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.

Once you discard all uniqueness identifiers a triangle is exactly the same (e.g identical) to a square!

[Skepdick]

When we say that things are similar, it means they are not identical but close to being identical.

Similar: approximately identical.

But {1,2,3} is approximately identical to {1,2,3}

They are very very close to being identical.

A small distance in spacetime separates them.

[Magnus Anderson]

Once you discard all uniqueness identifiers a triangle is exactly the same (e.g identical) to a square!

It is not.

[Magnus Anderson]

But {1,2,3} is approximately identical to {1,2,3}

They are very very close to being identical.

A small distance in spacetime separates them.

They are exactly the same.

[Skepdick]

But {1,2,3} is approximately identical to {1,2,3}

They are very very close to being identical.

A small distance in spacetime separates them.

They are exactly the same.

I agree! But they aren't identical!

They are only approximately identical!

They are have one uniqueness identifier remaining: location!

[Skepdick]

Once you discard all uniqueness identifiers a triangle is exactly the same (e.g identical) to a square!

It is not.

Contradiction.

If you discard all uniqueness identifiers between two things they are necessarily exactly the same!

If you are asserting that they are NOT exactly the same, then you haven't discarded ALL uniqueness identifiers.

[Skepdick]

But {1,2,3} is approximately identical to {1,2,3}

They are very very close to being identical.

A small distance in spacetime separates them.

They are exactly the same.

I can only keep explaining it to you.

{1,2,3} is exactly the same but not identical to {1,2,3} WHEN you selectively ignore the uniqueness identifier of location.

{1,2,3} is exactly the same but not identical to {1,2,3,4} WHEN you selectively ignore the uniqueness identifiers of location and contains-4

a triangle is exactly the same but not identical to a square WHEN you selectively ignore the uniqueness identifiers of location, number of sides, number of angles; or any other uniqueness identifiers which undermine their exact sameness.

1 is exactly the same as 2 WHEN you selectively ignore the uniqueness identifiers of location and numerical value.

True is exactly the same as False WHEN you selectively ignore the uniqueness identifiers of location; and Boolean value

If you don't ignore ANY uniqueness identifiers those are all different things identical only with themselves!
Any framework that allows for declaring different objects "exactly the same" by selectively ignoring their differences has abandoned any coherent concept of identity.

You are frustratingly stupid for continuing to misunderstand this.

[Magnus Anderson]

Or rather, you can only repeat yourself.

The word "identical" and the term "exactly the same" have the same meaning.
Neither of these two terms mean what you think they mean.

Again, learn English language.

Moving on . . .

{ 1, 2, 3 } is ALWAYS identical to { 1, 2, 3 }.

{ 1, 2, 3 } is NEVER identical to { 1, 2, 3, 4 }.

A triangle is NEVER identical to a square.

1 is NEVER identical to 2.

True is NEVER identical to false.

Again, you're using words your own way. Specifically, you're defining the terms "exactly the same" and "identical" your own way. You define the term "identical" to mean "has the same identity as". And you define the term "exactly the same" in a relative sense to mean "the same in a certain way".

That makes everything you say irrelevant at best and a strawman at worst.

Try understanding how other people, specifically those you so desperately try to criticize, use their words.

On the other hand, how can you given the amount of disregard you have for language?

The ironic thing is that, on several occasions, you've said yourself, and even agreed, that words mean whatever we want them to mean. Yet, when dealing with other people's words, you constantly try to force your own non-standard meanings onto them.

Are you going to pretend, once again, how this is all about thinking and how language is completely irrelevant? On an Internet forum, nonetheless! A place where people use language to exchange ideas.

[Skepdick]

Actually, I'm using it in only one sense.

I'm using it in the sense of "equal", "same" and "identical".

Those are three different senses

Four different symbols, one meaning.

You are using one symbol (=) in three different senses: "equal", "same" and "identical".

That's equivocation.

I'm using it precisely the way it is used in set theory.

No wonder you are so confused.

Dumb set theorist.

[Magnus Anderson]

The same way there is a difference between binary and non-binary similarity, there is a difference between absolute and relative sameness.

Binary similarity:

Two things are either similar or not.

They are similar if they have more than 50% of elements in common but less than 100%.

Non-binary similarity:

Two things are more or less similar, i.e. they are similar to a certain degree or extent.

An example of non-binary similarity would be centenary or percentage-based similarity where similarity is expressed on a scale from 0% to 100%, e.g. "25% similar", "75% similar", "100% similar", etc.

Non-binary "80% similar" is equivalent to binary "similar".
But non-binary "100% similar" is not ( it's equivalent to binary "same". )

Absolute sameness:

Two things are absolutely the same if they have all of their elements in common. No difference is allowed.

Relative sameness:

Two things are relatively the same if they are absolutely the same in a specific regard. For example, { 1, 2, 3 } and { 4, 5, 6 } are not absolutely the same but they are relatively the same in terms of their size.

With relative sameness, we're not necessarily comparing the entire portions of reality. We have to specify subsets we're comparing.

[Magnus Anderson]

You are using one symbol (=) in three different senses: "equal", "same" and "identical".

That's equivocation.

These are called "synonyms". A common thing.

Equivocation is something else and you have yet to learn what it is.

[Skepdick]

These are called "synonyms". A common thing.

Yeah, but they are only "synonymous" when you ignore the unique identifiers that differentiate them.

Equivocation is something else and you have yet to learn what it is.

Equivocation is exactly what you are doing.

You fail to differentiate the different (non-synonymous) meanings of "equal", "same" and "identical"; so you end up using a single symbol (=) to mean three different things.

Train wreck ensues.

Code: Select all

a = [1, 2, 3]
b = [1, 2, 3]
c = a

a == b  # True (they are equal - same content)
a is b  # False (they are not identical - different objects)
a is c  # True (they are identical - same object)