The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Skepdick]

The confusion is in your mind.

But I am doing exactly what you are doing. So if I am "confused" it's because you are confused.

You're comparing a subset of A to a subset of B. They are, of course, identical. So far so good.

Nonsense. I am not comparing subsets of A with subsets of B.

I am comparing A and B. Which are subsets of reality.

But then, you end up confusing the subset of A with the set A and the subset of B with the set B

Nonsense. A is a subset of the set reality. B is a subset of the set reality.

thinking that, just because the subsets are identical, it follows that the sets are identical as well.

There's no confusion. The superset of A and B (reality) is always identical to itself.

It has been explained to you at least 5 times by now. And you have yet to address that.

There's nothing to address. I am doing EXACTLY what you are doing.

[Magnus Anderson]

I am doing EXACTLY what you are doing.

And that's not true. But you won't listen.

How do you know you have an open mind, Skeppie, and that you're not merely stuck inside your own head?

Nonsense. I am not comparing subsets of A with subsets of B.

I am comparing A and B. Which are subsets of reality.

You need to agree with yourself, Skeppie.

Are you comparing the square to the circle?

Or are you comparing what they have in common?

You said you're doing the latter. That means you're comparing a subset of A with a subset of B.

[Skepdick]

And that's not true. But you won't listen.

It's not false. But you won't listen either.

How do you know you have an open mind, Skeppie, and that you're not merely stuck inside your own head?

Because you keep talking without saying anything new.

You need to agree with yourself, Skeppie.

Are you comparing the square to the circle?

You need to agree with yourself , Magnus.

When you discard uniqueness identifiers from the identities of A and B, you aren't comparing A and B. You are comparing a subset of A and B. The subset without uniqueness identifiers.

Or are you comparing what they have in common?

Distinction without a difference. When you discard uniqueness identifiers you are necessarily comparing only what they have in common.

You said you're doing the latter. That means you're comparing a subset of A with a subset of B.

I am just doing exactly what you are doing, buddy.

A minus its uniqueness identifiers is a subset of A.
B minus its uniqueness identifiers is a subset of B.

[Magnus Anderson]

Because you keep talking without saying anything new.

You're not addressing what I'm saying. You're ignoring it and merely repeating yourself. And when you do that, I don't have much choice but to repeat myself. However, I do make some effort to spice it up a bit and minimize my repetitiveness. You, on the other hand, don't care and make zero effort.

The issue is that, you don't know how to have a constructive dialogue. It's not that the other side is incapable of learning as you keep telling yourself. If anything, it's the other way around. It's pretty obvious to me, and I'm pretty sure to everyone else, that you never trained yourself how to have an open mind; specifically, how to listen carefully. All of your training went into learning how to be stubborn. You're a master at being stubborn. That's it. You know how to defend yourself from the influence of other people but you don't know how to learn from it. You also don't know how to persuade. Your strategy is the most primitive one. "How should I change their mind? Well, I guess I should just repeat my position over and over again until they finally get it."

Distinction without a difference.

So to you, comparing a triangle to a square and a portion of a triangle to a portion of a square is a distinction without a difference?

How exactly?

That's true if and only if a portion of a triangle is the same as the triangle itself and a portion of a square is the same as the square itself.

That reinforces what I said earlier, that you're confusing different things.

[Magnus Anderson]

I am just doing exactly what you are doing, buddy.

A minus its uniqueness identifiers is a subset of A.
B minus its uniqueness identifiers is a subset of B.

You're not doing what I'm doing.

And if you strip A of what makes it different from a subset of A, it does not suddenly become that subset of A.

That's an insanity of yours that you're trying to persuade everyone, including yourself, as being mine.

[Skepdick]

So to you, comparing a triangle to a square and a portion of a triangle to a portion of a square is a distinction without a difference?

How exactly?

How is it any different? Apportioning reality any which way is arbitrary.

That's true if and only if a portion of a triangle is the same as the triangle itself and a portion of a square is the same as the square itself.

That reinforces what I said earlier, that you're confusing different things.

Zero confusion. Apportioning of reality into sets, subsets, sub-subsets and sub-sub-sub-.....sets is all arbitrary.

[Skepdick]

And if you strip A of what makes it different from a subset of A, it does not suddenly become that subset of A.

Really? So if I remove 4 from {1,2,3,4} it doesn't become {1,2,3}; and {1,2,3} is not a subset of A?

What a genius. Dumber than a python script...

Code: Select all

In [1]: a = {1,2,3,4}

In [2]: (a - {4})
Out[2]: {1, 2, 3}

In [3]: (a - {4}).issubset(a)
Out[3]: True

That's an insanity of yours that you're trying to persuade everyone, including yourself, as being mine.

I am the paragon of sanity in this discussion. You are the fucking lunatic.

[Magnus Anderson]

How is it any different?

The same way comparing car A to car B is different from comparing a wheel of car A to a wheel of car B.

Cars are not the same thing as wheels.

Apportioning reality any which way is arbitrary.

You're free to choose what you're comparing, e.g. cars, wheels, apples, squares, triangles, humans, planets, populations, colors, sizes, etc.

Zero confusion. Apportioning of reality into sets, subsets, sub-subsets and sub-sub-sub-.....sets is all arbitrary.

You're actually quite a bit confused.

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

But once you choose what you're going to compare, you're not free to perform comparison in an arbitrary way.

Two different things.

You keep insisting that if you're free to choose what you're going to compare, you must also be free to perform comparison any way you want.

It does not follow.

[Magnus Anderson]

Really? So if I remove 4 from {1,2,3,4} it doesn't become {1,2,3}; and {1,2,3} is not a subset of A?

You're super confused.

You're now taking the word "strip" way too literally, as if we're actually modifying existing sets.

If you have a set A = { 1, 2, 3, 4 } and a set B = { 1, 2, 3, 5 }, and if you ignore all of the elements that they don't share, you get a set A' = { 1, 2, 3 } and a set B' = { 1, 2, 3 }. The two sets are subsets of A and B, respectively. They are identical but are not the original sets A and B.

[Magnus Anderson]

I am the paragon of sanity in this discussion.

Don't be silly. You're a rare nutcase. You're the Norman Boutin of philosophy. And I say this with utmost confidence.

[Magnus Anderson]

He keeps saying he understands my position yet he keeps trying to do things his own way.

This is what I'm saying:

Before you can perform any sort of comparison, you have to choose what yuu're comparing ( e.g. apples, oranges, cars, bikes, wheels, humans, animals, houses, rivers, mountains, forests, triangles, squares, colors, volumes, heights, locations, etc. )

Once you choose what you're comparing, you have to compare everything that constitutes the two things.

Example:

If you choose to compare set A = { 1, 2, 3, 4 } to set B = { 1, 2, 3, 5 }, you have to ensure that every element that is found in set A is also found in set B and vice versa. Because this isn't the case, the result of the comparison is that A and B are not identical.

This is what he's doing:

He keeps trying to perform the process of comparison in an arbitrary way.

He insists that this is something that follows from something I've said.

Example:

If you choose to compare set A = { 1, 2, 3, 4 } to set B = { 1, 2, 3, 5 }, you are free to ignore any elements you want. As such, you only have to ensure that an arbitrary subset of A is also a subset of B and that an arbitrary subset of B is also a subset of A. For example, you can choose to ignore 4 in A and 5 in B. In that case, the arbitrary subset of A is { 1, 2, 3 } and the arbitrary subset of B is { 1, 2, 3 }. Since both subsets are subsets of A nd B, it follows that A and B are identical.

The underlying idea:

The underlying idea is that, if you take two things and ignore everything that makes them different, you have no choice but to conclude that they are identical.

But is that true?

Of course it is not.

The sane person concludes that the remaining portions are identical, not the things we started with.

[Skepdick]

The same way comparing car A to car B is different from comparing a wheel of car A to a wheel of car B.

Cars are not the same thing as wheels.

Cars are portions of reality.
Wheels are portions of reality.

Once you ignore unique identifiers - what's the difference?

You're free to choose what you're comparing, e.g. cars, wheels, apples, squares, triangles, humans, planets, populations, colors, sizes, etc.

Yes. I am free to compare any two portions of reality. Even if they aren't cars, wheels, apples, squares, triangles, humans, planets, populations, colors, sizes, etc.

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

I know.

But once you choose what you're going to compare, you're not free to perform comparison in an arbitrary way.

I have chosen what I am going to compare. The non-unique identifiers of two portions of reality.

The arbitrariness of which identifiers are unique and non-unique is maintained and determined throughout the comparison process.

You keep insisting that if you're free to choose what you're going to compare, you must also be free to perform comparison any way you want.

It does not follow.

It follows exactly.

When you are focused on comparing only non-unique identifiers - you have absolutely no idea what those are a priori.

For every identifier encountered:
If it's unique - reject and don't compare.
If it's non-unique - accept and compare.

If I don't discard any unique identifiers during the comparison I can tell you outright - A and B are NOT identical!

In fact the only way A and B can be identical (on your notion of "identity") is if the union of their unique identifiers is empty.

[Magnus Anderson]

Once you ignore unique identifiers - what's the difference?

The difference is that you're no longer comparing what you started with.

The non-unique identifiers of two portions of reality.

You need to make up your mind.

Are you comparing the square to the triangle?

Or are you comparing portions of those?

If you're comparing what they have in common, you are comparing portions of those.

Do you understand what that means?

It means that, it is the portions you are comparing that are identical, not the square and the triangle themselves.

When you are focused on comparing only non-unique identifiers - you have absolutely no idea what those are a priori.

For every identifier encountered:
If it's unique - reject and don't compare.
If it's non-unique - accept and compare.

If I don't discard any unique identifiers during the comparison I can tell you outright - A and B are NOT identical!

In fact the only way A and B can be identical (on your notion of "identity") is if the union of their unique identifiers is empty.

I can tell you still don't fully comprehend the full implications of the fact that BEFORE YOU CAN COMPARE ANYTHING, YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE WHAT YOU'RE COMPARING.

In fact, before you can map anything, or talk about anything, you have to choose what you're mapping or talking about.

And that can be ABSOLUTELY ANY KIND OF SEGMENT OF REALITY.

Nothing is forcing you to choose a physical object TOGETHER with its location in time and space.

Consider this:

Let A be an apple TOGETHER with its location in time and location in space.

Let B be another apple TOGETHER with its location in time and location in space.

Let A and B be identical in every regard except for their locations in time and locations in space.

Are they identical? THEY AREN'T. They are merely APPROXIMATELY identical.

But here's the catch . . .

Let A' be A but without its location in time and its location in space. That would make it a subset of A.

And let B' be B but without its location in time and its location in space. That would make it a subset of B.

A and A' are 2 different portions of reality that are not identical ( but merely super close to being identical. )
The same applies to B and B'.

But A' and B' are identical. Completely. Not merely approximately. They are exactly the same. No difference. Zero difference. They are equal, same, identical in every regard.

The lesson?

WE CHOOSE WHAT WE'RE COMPARNIG.

[Skepdick]

The difference is that you're no longer comparing what you started with.

That's always the case when you discard any uniqueness identifiers!

WE CHOOSE WHAT WE'RE COMPARNIG.

That's what I am doing you fucking idiot.

I am choosing to discard uniqueness identifiers!

The more uniqueness identifiers you choose to discard - the more everything becomes identical to everything else.

[Magnus Anderson]

The more uniqueness identifiers you choose to discard - the more everything becomes identical to everything else.

So when I'm ignoring Uranus and Neptune, I am making them identical?

That is to say, I am perceiving them as identical?