The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Impenitent]

when I hear "4," I watch for flying golf balls

-Imp

[Belinda]

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.

When I chose apple to illustrate uniqueness I perforce had to attribute place, time, and duration otherwise apple would not have been unique. Apple thus served as a place holder for any unique entity.

Had I wanted to illustrate apple of 1st May 1991, I'd have attributed time, space, and duration to apple of 1st May 1991.

In a relative world no thing exists which is identical in every attribute with another thing.

Mathematics is not a world it's a concept with no physical correlate.

[Magnus Anderson]

When I chose apple to illustrate uniqueness I perforce had to attribute place, time, and duration otherwise apple would not have been unique. Apple thus served as a place holder for any unique entity.

Had I wanted to illustrate apple of 1st May 1991, I'd have attributed time, space, and duration to apple of 1st May 1991.

In a relative world no thing exists which is identical in every attribute with another thing.

Again, you're missing the point.

Before you can accurately describe something, which is to say, to form an accurate verbal map of it that you can share with others, you have to choose what that something is.

Nothing is forcing you to describe the location of an apple. You can ignore it the same way you can ignoring everything else and focus only on what physically constitutes an apple.

That's what it means "to select a portion of reality". It's similar to a painter choosing what he's going to paint; or a photographer choosing what he's going to take a photo of. They can write the address of the apple on their canvas / photo but they don't have to.

And when people say that two things are identical, they are saying that the contents of the selected portions of reality share everything in common, not that the selected portions of reality are one and the same.

[Magnus Anderson]

Mathematics is not a world it's a concept with no physical correlate.

That's a mistake that people who lean a bit too much on the side of materialism are prone to making.

The underlying premise is that only tangible things exist. Consequently, if something is intagible, i.e. if you can't touch it, it only exists as an idea inside your mind.

When you take that errenous idea to its extreme, you end up with subjective idealism, solipsism and other subjectivist "It's mental" philosophies.

Quantities aren't mental. The associated concepts are.

Even if all minds ceased to exist, the number of planets in the world won't disappear. ( In fact, it does not even have the capacity to disappear. )

Not only that, it won't even change.

[popeye1945]

The relations of things are not always known to us, and I believe knowing relations is mathematics; they could mean nothing outside of the consciousness of a living subject. All beings are causes to all other beings, and in their reactions, they, in turn, are causes to all other beings. Mathematics is the study of relations in the world of objects, held by the subject and infers oneness. Oneness is the only possible identity, as there is no such thing as an independent existence, and we have no idea if the universe is a closed or open system.

[Skepdick]

In order to describe something, you have to choose what you're describing.

Choosing what you are describing is identifying it, dumb ass.

[Skepdick]

Even if all minds ceased to exist, the number of planets in the world won't disappear. ( In fact, it does not even have the capacity to disappear. )

Not only that, it won't even change.

There's no such property in the world as "number of planets" without a mind to count them.

If all minds ceased to exists the planets would remain but "the number of planets" would cease to exist because the conceptual operation of "counting" wouldn't exist.

You are confusing the formal structures we use to organize our perceptions of reality; for the reality.

[Magnus Anderson]

There's no such property in the world as "number of planets" without a mind to count them.

Extremely idiotic.

If all minds ceased to exists the planets would remain but "the number of planets" would cease to exist because the conceptual operation of "counting" wouldn't exist.

If there are planets, then there is a number of them. In fact, even if there are no planets, there is a number of them -- zero.

So how can the number of planets come to exist or cease to exist? It's a permanent, eternal property with absolutely no capacity to not exist.

What you're saying is ridiculuous. You're saying that there would be planets but that there would be no number of them.

You might as well say there would be no planets at all because the operation of classification wouldn't exist.

But what else can one expect from a recovering direct realist? You're stuck in direct realism. No matter how hard you try to get out of it, you're stuck in it. You can't help yourself.

You are confusing the formal structures we use to organize our perceptions of reality; for the reality.

That's what you're doing while projecting it onto me.

You're confusing quantities ( objective things ) with concepts of quantities ( subjective things. )

It's the opposite of reification -- subjectivization. Treating objective things as if they are subjective.

It's all a consequence of a deeply ingrained materialistic worldview. Unless you can touch it, it does not exist.

[Skepdick]

If there are planets, then there is a number of them. In fact, even if there are no planets, there is a number of them -- zero.

Dumb Platonist.

You're confusing quantities ( objective things ) with concepts of quantities ( subjective things. )

Dumb quant.

Quantities are instruments for organizing knowledge.

It's all a consequence of a deeply ingrained materialistic worldview. Unless you can touch it, it does not exist.

That's hilarious. You are the one who insist that quantities exist even without humans.

So what or where are quantities? Since they can't be in the minds of non-existing humans.

[Magnus Anderson]

You are the one who insist that quantities exist even without humans.

Correct. It sould be obvious. If you remove all minds from the universe, the number of planets in the Solar System would still be 8. Just because there is noone to perceive that fact doesn't change that fact.

But you're a vain over-thinking tryhard pseudo-intellectual with a deeply ingrained belief in materialism and direct realism.

Quantities are instruments for organizing knowledge.

Again, you're confusing quantities with concepts of quantities. You do that all the time. You can't help it.

[Magnus Anderson]

Even you agree that the number of planets would still be 8 after removing all minds from existence. You just don't want to admit it to yourself and others because it annihilates your idiotic point that quantities are ontologically subjective.

And when you try to deny it, you try to deny it using idiotic, self-contradictory, meaningless claims such as, "There would planets but there won't be any number of them." How can there be planets but no number of them? It's logically impossible. Do you ever listen to yourself?

Isn't it interesting how empiricism, direct realism and materialism can lead people to mistify reality, i.e. to treat it as something that is fundamentally mysterious, unknowable, unperceivable, incomprehensible, illogical, irrational? And all these freaks do the same. They reject logic and shamelessly endorse the usage of completely nonsensical and meaningless symbols to describe reality.

[Skepdick]

Even you agree that the number of planets would still be 8 after removing all minds from existence. You just don't want to admit it to yourself and others because it annihilates your idiotic point that quantities are ontologically subjective.

And when you try to deny it, you try to deny it using idiotic, self-contradictory, meaningless claims such as, "There would planets but there won't be any number of them." How can there be planets but no number of them? It's logically impossible. Do you ever listen to yourself?

Isn't it interesting how empiricism, direct realism and materialism can lead people to mistify reality, i.e. to treat it as something that is fundamentally mysterious, unknowable, unperceivable, incomprehensible, illogical, irrational? And all these freaks do the same. They reject logic and shamelessly endorse the usage of completely nonsensical and meaningless symbols to describe reality.

What a dumb cunt.

Quantification is a human activity. When you remove the quantifiers (humans) you don't get to keep the quantities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantification_(science)

In mathematics and empirical science, quantification (or quantitation) is the act of counting and measuring that maps human sense observations and experiences into quantities. Quantification in this sense is fundamental to the scientific method.

[Magnus Anderson]

Quantification is a human activity.

Oh wow, I'm astonished, what a brilliant insight.

You're the only person in this thread talking about quantification.

To quantify is to determine, or perceive, the quantity of something. The quantity must be there BEFORE it can be determined or perceived. The fact it's an immaterial thing that you cannot touch with your fingers does not mean it's not there. It just means it's not a physical object.

The product of quantification is a map or a representation of the quantity that you are trying to perceive. An example would be the word "eight" or the numerical symbol "8". Quantification isn't the act of changing the quantity of something.

You're hopeless . . . you're destined to confuse quantities with concepts of quantities for the rest of your life. Keep making the same mistakes as the Anglo-Saxon and German philosophers of the past that you very clearly worship so much.

When you remove the quantifiers (humans) you don't get to keep the quantities.

A claim as idiotic as, "When you remove the perceivers, you don't get to keep the perceived."

[popeye1945]

Take away the subject, and the object ceases to be; remove the object, and the conscious subject ceases to be. They are Interdependent in the creation of apparent reality.

[Belinda]

Take away the subject, and the object ceases to be; remove the object, and the conscious subject ceases to be. They are Interdependent in the creation of apparent reality.

Yes, but all sentences are not analytic like predicating an attribute of something else.
Some sentences declare unique identity. E.g. "On this forum I am Belinda", "God is good", "Evil is absence of good", "The morning star is the evening star"', "A great cause of the night is absence of the sun". (That last example --- Touchstone the clown in Shakespeare's --- 'As You Like It'.)

The moral effect of some analytic sentences may be destructive. As Sartre sort of said: if that man over there says he is a waiter then he is doing himself a disservice. That man is much besides a waiter and the totality of what he is can't be known until the moment of his death.