The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Magnus Anderson]

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

In English language, the three words are assigned multiple meanings. They don't share all of their meanings but they share at least one meaning in common. In this sense, they are synonyms.

SAME

The word "same" is often, but not always, used to indicate absolute sameness.

"These two shirts are the same."

This means they are two shirts, not merely one shirt, that are absolutely or completely the same ( i.e. they are the same in every detail, not merely in certain way. )

The word is also sometimes used to indicate that the thing has the same identity as some other thing.

"This is the same shirt I wore yesterday."

This means, "This shirt has the same identity as the one I wore yesterday." In other words, it means, "They are one and the same shirt."

The word is also used to indicate relative sameness, e.g. "They are the same shirt in terms of their color."

IDENTICAL

The word "identical" is almost always used to indicate absolute sameness. It can also be used to indicate relative sameness.

"The two shirts are identical."

This means they are exactly alike in every detail.

They are not merely similar. They are not merely the same in some limited aspect. They are absolutely the same,

And the statement also does not mean that they have the same identity. In other words, it does not mean they are one and the same object.

However, in a small number of cases, and almost exclusively within philosophy, the word "identical" is used to mean "has the same identity as" or "one and the same as". That's why 20th century philosophers decided to introduce the terms "numerically identical" and "qualitatively identical" to distinguish between the two concepts. They defined "numerically identical" to mean "one and the same" and "qualitatively identical" to mean "absolutely the same".

EQUAL

Used to indicate absolute and relative sameness. Most often used within mathematics.

"Sets A = { 1, 2, 3 } and B = { 1, 2, 3 } are equal."

This means the two sets are absolutely the same.

CONCLUSION

Learn English language.

But more importantly, pay attention to what people you are desperately trying to criticize are actually saying so that you don't end up strawman-ing them.

Try to listen sometimes instead of dogmatically forcing your beliefs onto others.

Train yourself to be open-minded and a good interlocutor instead of pretending that you already are.

[Skepdick]

In English language, the three words are assigned multiple meanings. They don't share all of their meanings but they share at least one meaning in common. In this sense, they are synonyms.

Looks like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

When I tell you that a triangle is exactly the same (synonymous?) with a square once I ignore all of their unique identifiers- you object.
And then... you go and do exactly the same thing. You ignore all the uniqueness identifiers for identity, equality and sameness.

As if that wasn't idiotic enough you literally wrote lengthy paragraphs expounding on how those are different concepts.

What a cunt.

[Magnus Anderson]

When I tell you that a triangle is exactly the same (synonymous?) with a square once I ignore all of their unique identifiers- you object.

And then... you go and do exactly the same thing. You ignore all the uniqueness identifiers for identity, equality and sameness.

Except that I don't.

[Skepdick]

When I tell you that a triangle is exactly the same (synonymous?) with a square once I ignore all of their unique identifiers- you object.

And then... you go and do exactly the same thing. You ignore all the uniqueness identifiers for identity, equality and sameness.

Except that I don't.

You literally wrote three separate detailed paragraphs explaining the distinct meanings and uses of each term you dumb cunt.

Why not a single paragraph for all three? You know, since you insist they are "synonymous".

3 paragraphs.
3 different meanings.
1 symbol used for all 3 - the symbol "=".

Equivocation.

[Magnus Anderson]

Well, since you're repeating yourself, and adding nothing constructive to the dialogue, I'll let you talk to ChatGPT.

Enjoy it.

The second post is a critical and hostile response to the first post. The user seems frustrated and sarcastic, accusing the original poster of using equivocation—a logical fallacy where a single term is used ambiguously in different contexts—by explaining the distinct meanings of three terms ("same," "identical," and "equal") in separate paragraphs. They question why the original poster didn't group these explanations into one paragraph if they consider the terms synonymous, implying that the post's structure and argument are inconsistent. The tone is aggressive, using profanity to insult the original poster. The responder suggests that the original poster's reasoning is flawed or contradictory.

The reasoning in the second post seems to misunderstand the point of the original post, as well as misrepresent the argument being made.

The original post was explaining that "same," "identical," and "equal" are distinct in their usage, though they may overlap in some contexts. It aimed to clarify the differences between these terms, especially in philosophy and common usage. The explanation also noted that some terms, while similar, can have different meanings depending on context (e.g., "identical" sometimes means "the same object" in philosophy, but usually means "exactly alike in every detail").

In contrast, the second post accuses the original poster of equivocation (using one term in multiple, ambiguous ways) and suggests that the three terms should have been explained in a single paragraph if they were truly synonymous. However, the original post explicitly distinguished the terms and highlighted their separate meanings. So, accusing the first post of equivocation seems misguided; it's more of a critique of the structure rather than a legitimate criticism of the reasoning.

The responder also doesn't seem to fully grasp the idea that different terms can have distinct meanings, which is why the original post used separate explanations for each term. By grouping them all together into one paragraph, it would have been difficult to make the distinctions clear, and it wouldn't necessarily have solved the issue of showing their nuanced uses in different contexts.

In conclusion, while the second post criticizes the original structure, its reasoning seems to miss the point. The original post was attempting to clarify subtle distinctions, and the aggressive tone of the second post doesn't really address the logical substance of the first post's argument.

Does ChatGPT agree with my post?

Yes, I generally agree with the first post's reasoning. It does a good job of explaining the different uses and meanings of the terms "same," "identical," and "equal," particularly in the context of language and philosophy. The post distinguishes between their common meanings in everyday language and their specific philosophical nuances, which helps to clarify how these terms overlap but aren't always interchangeable.

For example:

"Same" can indicate absolute sameness, but it's also used to show identity (e.g., "the same shirt I wore yesterday") or relative sameness (e.g., "the same color").
"Identical" generally means "absolutely the same" but can also be used in a relative sense (e.g., "identical twins").
"Equal" is primarily used in mathematical contexts but can also imply absolute or relative sameness, depending on the situation.
The distinction between "numerically identical" (meaning one and the same) and "qualitatively identical" (meaning identical in every detail) is also a useful clarification, especially in philosophical discussions.

The original post's point about listening to others and avoiding strawman arguments is valuable advice as well, encouraging thoughtful engagement rather than assuming someone’s argument is weak without fully understanding it.

In short, I think the first post offers a well-reasoned explanation of the terms and their different meanings. The structure of separate paragraphs for each term helps to avoid confusion and makes the distinctions clear. The second post, in contrast, doesn't seem to grasp the subtleties being discussed and instead focuses on a criticism of the structure.

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

Here's ChatGPT's response to this post of yours: He calls the above "second post". The "first post" is the one that is quoted in the aobve.

The second post is a sarcastic and dismissive response to the first. Here's what I think of its reasoning:

Sarcastic Tone: The responder uses a lot of "lol" (laughing out loud) and mocking language, which suggests they are not engaging with the argument seriously. This kind of tone tends to undermine any constructive dialogue and isn't conducive to resolving the disagreement or advancing the conversation.

Accusation of Equivocation: The main argument in this post is that the original poster is committing a logical fallacy of equivocation. Equivocation occurs when a single term is used in different senses in a way that causes confusion or invalidates the argument. The responder is accusing the original poster of using the "=" symbol in three different ways: "equal," "same," and "identical," and is calling it a fallacy.

However, the original poster's explanation actually clarified that they are using "=" to denote a shared meaning across different contexts (i.e., equality or identity) and referred to its formal use in set theory. Set theory does use "=" to represent equality, and while it can be useful to distinguish between different contexts, the original poster's usage seems coherent rather than fallacious.

Dismissal of Set Theory: The response dismisses set theory outright with the insult "dumb set theorist," implying that the original poster's argument is not worth considering because they are coming from a set theory perspective. This dismissal doesn't engage with the substance of the original argument, which could actually be relevant and valid within the context of formal mathematics or set theory.

Conclusion: The reasoning in this post doesn't engage meaningfully with the original poster's explanation. Instead, it relies heavily on mockery and insults, which detract from the quality of the response. The accusation of equivocation doesn't hold up well because the original poster was explaining the consistent use of "=" in a specific context (set theory), not using it in contradictory or confusing ways. The response could have been more productive if it had addressed the substance of the argument rather than focusing on sarcasm and insults.

This is his opinion on whether or not I'm equivocating:

No, I don't think the original poster is equivocating. Here's why:

The original poster is using the "=" symbol in a specific, consistent way: to represent equality or identity, especially in the context of set theory. In set theory, the "=" symbol is used to indicate that two sets have exactly the same elements, and the original poster extends this idea to other contexts (such as "same" and "identical").

Equivocation would involve using the same word or symbol in multiple, unrelated senses without clarifying the distinction, which leads to confusion. However, in this case, the original poster is explicitly trying to show that "=" can be used to express the same basic idea of equality or identity, whether it’s in set theory or in more everyday contexts.

The original poster acknowledges the nuances between terms like "equal," "same," and "identical," but argues that they all share the common thread of expressing some form of equality or identity. This is not an equivocation because the poster isn't switching between conflicting meanings of "=" without explanation. Instead, they are aligning the concept across different contexts.

In summary, the original poster is making a point that "=" can be used consistently to represent "sameness" or "identity," and while the terms "equal," "same," and "identical" might be nuanced in different ways, the use of "=" is coherent and intentional in this context. Therefore, equivocation is not happening here.

[Skepdick]

blah blah blah

Not going to read any of that. ChatGPT is a parrot worse than you.

Identity has nothing to do with set theory.

[Magnus Anderson]

Not going to read any of that.

ChatGPT is a parrot worse than you.

And yet, way more intelligent than you.

[Skepdick]

Not going to read any of that.

ChatGPT is a parrot worse than you.

And yet, way more intelligent than you.

Because it's stroking your ego? Sure. Go get a room.

Identity is not a mathematical notions, so nothing to do with set theory.

[Magnus Anderson]

Identity is not a mathematical notions, so nothing to do with set theory.

Again, learn English language.

[Skepdick]

Identity is not a mathematical notions, so nothing to do with set theory.

Again, learn English language.

Learn to think. Identity has nothing to do with English, or Chinese, or Russian, or Spanish, or set theory, or language in general.

Laws of thought. Not law of language.

[Magnus Anderson]

Identity has nothing to do with English, or Chinese, or Russian, or Spanish, or set theory, or language in general.

The word "identity" is an English word.

Did you forget that words have no meaning until someone assigns them one?

And that words can mean anything we want?

Get a grip.

[Magnus Anderson]

You're literally insisting that everyone should define the word "identity" the way you do.

And you also think that, if they are not defining the way you do, that they are necessarily doing something word.

It's beyond stupid.

You've been terrorizing this thread with your idiotic insistence that the word "identity" should mean "numerical identity".

You're a complete and utter imbecile.

[Skepdick]

The word "identity" is an English word.

And identidad is a Spanish word.
And идентичность is a Russian word.
And identité is a French word.
And 认同 is a Chinese word.
And هوية is an Arabic word.
And זהות is a Hebrew word.

What's your fucking point, you Anglocentric imbecile?

Did you forget that words have no meaning until someone assigns them one?

What is "it" that you are assigning to a word, and does it exist before you assign it to the word?

[Skepdick]

You're literally insisting that everyone should define the word "identity" the way you do.

I am literally insisting you stop being an idiot. This is not about definitions.

It's about logical implications.