The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Magnus Anderson]

Now, why do you want to think and talk about them collectively - as being the same?
Why don't you want to think and talk about them individually - as being different?

Ironically, you're accusing me of your own guilt.

You're the one who is treating different things as if they are the same.

You are, in this sense, significantly more collectivistic than I am.

I have written pages and pages of posts in an effort to explain to you that an apple WITH its location and an apple WITHOUT its location are two different things.

But to no avail.

You keep conflating the two.

[Skepdick]

You can't compare two apples without first "cutting them from the flux".

No shit, sherlock! You can't even identify an apple without "cutting it from the flux".

When you are comparing you cut twice.
When you are identifying you only cut once.

That's why "comparing" is a binary function.
That's why identity is a unary function.

Who is doing the cutting, comparing and identifying? Have you cut them from the flux?

You have to ignore everything else in the universe in order to be able to compare them and establish that they are different.

You also have to ignore everything else in the universe in order to identify an apple.

Otherwise, you have no choice but to conclude, "All is one."

That's not a conclusion, that's a premise you dumb cunt.

Then you begin "cutting things from the flux".
That's called "identification".

Step 1 is to identify yourself.

It's the same exact idiotic kind of reasoning that you employ, it's just that you don't like it because . . . you don't like collectivism?

Collectivism? You mean the cognitive inability to locate yourself in the flux?

What a dumb cunt.

[Magnus Anderson]

No shit, sherlock! You can't even identify an apple without "cutting it from the flux".

When you are comparing you cut twice.
When you are identifying you only cut once.

That's why "comparing" is a binary function.
That's why identity is a unary function.

And this is why you're an idiot.

[Skepdick]

Now, why do you want to think and talk about them collectively - as being the same?
Why don't you want to think and talk about them individually - as being different?

Ironically, you're accusing me of your own guilt.

You're the one who is treating different things as if they are the same.

Unironically. You are an idiot.

I may be treating different things as being the same, but I am never treating them as being identical.

You are, in this sense, significantly more collectivistic than I am.

But in the sense that I recognize the identity of the constituents even when I treat them as "the same" - I am significantly less collectivistic than you.

I have written pages and pages of posts in an effort to explain to you that an apple WITH its location and an apple WITHOUT its location are two different things.

But to no avail.

You keep conflating the two.

And I have written pages and pages of posts (but to no avail) that an apple without a location is not an apple.

You keep conflating non-apples (abstract ideas of apples) for apples.

[Magnus Anderson]

I may be treating different things as being the same, but I am never treating them as being identical.

You're literally conflating things.

You can only deceive yourself . . .

And I have written pages and pages of posts (but to no avail) that an apple without a location is not an apple.

It's the abstract idea of an apple.

I am well aware of the fact that you lean heavily on the side of subjectivism.

The mistake that you're making here is the opposite of reification -- subjectivization. In other words, you're treating objective things as if they are subjective.

[Skepdick]

I may be treating different things as being the same, but I am never treating them as being identical.

You're literally conflating things.

You can only deceive yourself . . .

You are conflating my non-conflation as if it were conflation.

That's how dumb you are. You fail to grasp separation of concerns.

I am well aware of the fact that you lean heavily on the side of subjectivism.

Buddy, you are the one who can't tell the objective difference between an apple (with location) and a non-apple (without location)!

So you equivocate both as "apples".

The mistake that you're making here is the opposite of reification

The opposite of a mistake is a non-mistake.

subjectivization. In other words, you're treating objective things as if they are subjective.

Oh, that's hilarious.

Objectively speaking is {1,2} ordered or not?

[Skepdick]

You haven't . . . and you have you to realize that you haven't. But it's going to take some time. Some seriously long time.

I have...and you have to realize that I have. But with you such a realization is going to take infinite time.

Which is to say - you'll never realize it, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

[Skepdick]

And this is why you're an idiot.

You aren't competent enough to make such assertions either.

[Magnus Anderson]

I am comparing {1,2} and {2,1} !!!

What should I compare them as?
Should I compare them as symbols?
Should I compare them as strings?
Should I compare them as sets?
Should I compare them as clusters of pixels?

You need to choose what you're comparing them as. Until you do that, you haven't really chosen what you're comparing.

Normally, when someone says they are comparing { 1, 2 } and { 2, 1 }, they are saying they are comparing sets. This is what the curly braces indicate.

But you're speaking in your own version of the language of mathematics. . . To you, { 1, 2 } and { 2, 1 } do not necessarily represent sets. They can also represent sequences, strings of characters, clusters of pixels, etc.

It would have been different if you have said, "I am comparing { 1, 2 } and { 2, 1 } as strings of characters". Using "as" clarifies that you aren't necessarily talking about sets. Or better yet, you could have said, "I am comparing the string of characters { 1, 2 } to the string of characters { 2, 1 }." But you haven't done that, and you generally don't do that; in fact, you refuse to tell us what you're comparing. No wonder nothing ever gets resolved.

A set, a sequence, a string of alphanumeric characters and a cluster of pixels are 4 different kinds of things, 4 different kinds of portions of reality.

[Magnus Anderson]

Understand that "4" and "4 qua symbol" denote two different things, and that, contrary to your belief, "4" cannot be used in place of "4 qua symbol". This is because "4" means "4 qua number" and nothing else. The "qua" and "as" syntax are merely extensions that allow us to construct a different meaning based on the existing one.

You are free to bend words as you please but do understand the consequences of doing something like that and compensate for them.

You did the same with the term "square-circle" insisting stupidly that it does not strictly refer to Euclidean square-circles, arguing that that would be a mistake because the universe is non-Euclidean ( an extremely idiotic objection, I must say. )

[popeye1945]

In the world, the cosmos of change there is no identity, for like apparent reality itself, identity is only apparent, all is in flow.

[Belinda]

In the world, the cosmos of change there is no identity, for like apparent reality itself, identity is only apparent, all is in flow.

An apple without its location is unknown and unknowable in a relative world.

One hears of such phantoms as an apple without its location only in ghost stories.

[Belinda]

In the world, the cosmos of change there is no identity, for like apparent reality itself, identity is only apparent, all is in flow.

An apple without its location is unknown and unknowable in a relative world.

One hears of such phantoms as an apple without its location only in ghost stories.

Magnus, Euclid's inspiration was need to make precise measurements. Precise measurements are not reality but are abstracted from reality. Everyday differentiation of one object from another depends on social consensus as to what is to be considered the criterion. E.g.

* one day's walk

* the labour of one ox and plough before sundown

* number of boatloads of building stones

* the gestation period of a hunting bitch

* phases of the moon

* best season for planting

Euclid 's is a sophistication of such as the above.

[popeye1945]

In the world, the cosmos of change there is no identity, for like apparent reality itself, identity is only apparent, all is in flow.

An apple without its location is unknown and unknowable in a relative world.

One hears of such phantoms as an apple without its location only in ghost stories.

Magnus, Euclid's inspiration was need to make precise measurements. Precise measurements are not reality but are abstracted from reality. Everyday differentiation of one object from another depends on social consensus as to what is to be considered the criterion. E.g.

* one day's walk

* the labour of one ox and plough before sundown

* number of boatloads of building stones

* the gestation period of a hunting bitch

* phases of the moon

* best season for planting

Euclid 's is a sophistication of such as the above.

All meaning is biologically dependent. There is indeed the location of the things we have named. The concept of location itself is relative, and relative to what, if not biological consciousness. Nothing in the physical world has meaning that is not attributed to it by a conscious subject. The old Buddhist teacher asked what is the meaning of a flower. The flower has no meaning, it just is. An apple's unknown location has no identity, the unknown has no identity if there is no conscious subject to bestow an identity upon it. All meaning is the property of biological consciousness and never to the object. Humanity has named all known things to it, but what is in a name to someone who does not know its taught meaning in its native language? There certainly are regularities but regularity is not identity, the object/s involved in regularity just are until bestowed with meaning by a conscious subject. It's a dreamy moving not quiet thing, only the illusion is the grasp of the ring. Even regularity just is. In a sense, recognition comes before the actual bestowing of identity meaning. No recognition, no identity. Location is a bestowed meaning and all meaning is biologically bestowed and its sole property.

[Magnus Anderson]

An apple without its location is unknown and unknowable in a relative world.

One hears of such phantoms as an apple without its location only in ghost stories.

You misunderstand.

You have to learn that you can't deal with anything without first choosing what you're dealing with.

Failure to realize that results in an excessively rigid, inflexible, mind.

In order to describe something, you have to choose what you're describing. Nothing forces you to describe an apple together with its location in the same exact way that nothing forces you to describe all apples in the world.