The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Skepdick]

What an extremely retarded solipsist you are.

If it was Tom who asked, "If we remove all minds from existence, what will be the number of planets in the Solar System?", then it is what Tom meant by the word "planet" at the time of asking the question that matters.

What an extremely retarded realist you are.

If Tom is removed from existence then who asked the question?

[Skepdick]

They changed what they are talking about, clown.

They changed the quantity that they are measuring.

You're a retard.

Humans changed a quantity that exists independent of humans?!?

Did we destroy a celestial body; or something?

What a fucking idiot!

[Skepdick]

You are hallucinating. I never claimed "direct access". I merely claimed that quantities are mind-independent.

So how is it possible for a "mind-independent" quantity to change; by changing the mind-dependent definition of a "planet"?!?

[Magnus Anderson]

Why is Earth counted as a planet?
Why isn't Pluto counted as a planet?

Why do you count as an imbecile?
Why don't you count as an intelligent person?

I's because of who you are and because of the way the words "imbecile" and "intelligent person" are defined.

There are planets and then there are symbols of planets. Remove all minds and you will still have planets but there will no longer be anyone using the symbols of planets.

You just can't help yourself get out of your pathetic solipsistic mindset.

[Magnus Anderson]

You are hallucinating. I never claimed "direct access". I merely claimed that quantities are mind-independent.

So how is it possible for a "mind-independent" quantity to change; by changing the mind-dependent definition of a "planet"?!?

The quantity didn't change. The only thing that changed is the quantity they are talking about. What they did is something along the lines of switching from "The number of people in the world" to "The number of unicorns in the world". The former is 8 billion. The latter is 0. They didn't magically get rid of 8 billion people. They merely changed the aspect of reality they are focusing on.

[Skepdick]

Why do you count as an imbecile?

Because 0 imbecility is still makes me an imbecile in your conceptual framework.

Why don't you count as an intelligent person?

Because >0 indelligence doesn't count as intelligence in your conceptual framework.

I's because of who you are and because of the way the words "imbecile" and "intelligent person" are defined.

An intelligent person wouldn't fall into the sort of definitional circularities you keep falling into, imbecile.

There are planets and then there are symbols of planets. Remove all minds and you will still have planets but there will no longer be anyone using the symbols of planets.

You just can't help yourself get out of your pathetic solipsistic mindset.

What a dumb cunt still confusing Earth and Pluto for symbols.

[Skepdick]

The quantity didn't change.

Why are you lying, cunt?

The quantity was 9.
Now it's 8.

The only thing that changed is the quantity they are talking about.

The quantity they were talking about was the number of planets.

It changed from 9 to 8.

What they did is something along the lines of switching from "The number of people in the world" to "The number of unicorns in the world". The former is 8 billion. The latter is 0. They didn't magically get rid of 8 billion people. They merely changed the aspect of reality they are focusing on.

They were focusing on the planets in the solar system.

Does the set of planets in the solar system contain 8 or 9 celestial bodies? What is the true; mind-independent answer?

[Magnus Anderson]

Why are you lying, ****?

The quantity was 9.
Now it's 8.

See how stupid you are?

They changed the meaning of the word "planet". By doing that, they changed the quantity they are talking about.

Words can mean anything. It's an arbitrary thing. You can redefine the word "planet" to mean the same thing as the word "unicorn". In that case, you'd be right to say that the number of planets in the Solar System is zero. But you'd be wrong to say you're talking about the same thing as before. Because you aren't. You're now talking about a different quantity.

Retards of your kind are extremely rare in this world. That's why I propose that you be awarded the title, "The Norman Boutin of Philosophy".

The quantity they were talking about was the number of planets.

It changed from 9 to 8.

It didn't, retard. They didn't destroy Pluto. It's still there.

They were focusing on the planets in the solar system.

They definitely changed what they are focusing on, which is why Pluto no longer counted.

[Magnus Anderson]

You're going to be a loser for the rest of your life and there's nothing I can do to help you.

It's a very sad story.

[Skepdick]

They changed the meaning of the word "planet". By doing that, they changed the quantity they are talking about.

Contradiction.

You cannot change a mind-independent quantity by altering the meaning of a word.

Words can mean anything. It's an arbitrary thing.

So what do you mean by "quantity"?

It didn't, retard. They didn't destroy Pluto. It's still there.

I know it's still there, retard.

So explain how a change in definition results in change in a "mind-independent" quantity?

They definitely changed what they are focusing on, which is why Pluto no longer counted.

So merely changing what one focuses on can turn a planet into a non-planet?!?

Congratulations! That's not how mind-independence works.

[Skepdick]

You're going to be a loser for the rest of your life and there's nothing I can do to help you.

It's a very sad story.

Medice, cura te ipsum!

[Magnus Anderson]

Contradiction.

You cannot change a mind-independent quantity by altering the meaning of a word.

I said they changed the meaning of the word, moron, not the quantity itself. Are you deaf? Or are you unable to distinguish between the two in your head?

I know it's still there, retard.

Then don't say stupid things such as, "The number of planets changed from 9 to 8." That means that one of the planets ceased to exist. Do you ever listen to yourself, cretin?

So explain how a change in definition results in change in a "mind-independent" quantity?

Fuckface, do you ever listen to what other people are saying? There is NO change in quantity whatsoever. That's your own idiotic insistence. They merely shifted their focus from one quantity to another. Instead of talking about "The number of people in the world", they shifted to talking about "The number of unicorns in the world". Neither of the two quantities changed. The only thing that changed is the human focus.

So merely changing what one focuses on can turn a planet into a non-planet?!?

They didn't turn a planet into a non-planet, imbecile.

Congratulations! That's not how mind-independence works.

You are severely retarded, dummy. There is no hope for you.

[Magnus Anderson]

If Tom is removed from existence then who asked the question?

Tom asked it before he was removed, you shithead. Removing him from existence does not change the fact that he asked a question pertaining to some aspect of reality.

You are trying too hard to defend the indefensible.

[Magnus Anderson]

Humans changed a quantity that exists independent of humans?!?

Did we destroy a celestial body; or something?

What a fucking idiot!

Pay attention, wannabe.

They changed what particular quantity of things they are talking about. They didn't change the quantity itself. Nothing was added. Nothing was removed. They merely shifted their focus from ONE particular quantity to ANOTHER.

A real life example of quantity would be, "The number of people in the universe". That's one example. "The number of unicorns in the universe" would be another. "The number of dragons in the universe" would be yet another. The first is 8 billion. The second is 0. The third is also 0. Three different quantities with the last two being identical ( but not NUMERICALLY identical, i.e. they are not one and the same quantity. )

You can call things any way you want. You can call the 3 mentioned quantities the same name, for example. You can call all three of them X. So, when you say, "X is 8 billion", you'd be right, insofar by X you mean "the number of people in the universe". Similarly, when you say, "X is 0", you'd be right, insofar by X you either mean "the number of unicorns in the universe" or "the number of dragons in the universe".

That's what's taking place in science, you clown.

They are calling two different quantities, two different aspects of reality, one and the same name, "The number of planets in the Solar System".

So, depending on which of the two aspects of reality they are talking about, the correct answer is either 8 or 9.

[Magnus Anderson]

"1 part" is an oxymoron. You are confusing the whole for a part.

The whole refers to all of its parts together. The word "part" refers to a subset of a whole -- but not necessarily to a proper subset of it. As such, the whole is a part of itself. Moreover, if a whole consists of exactly 1 part, then the part and the whole are the same thing.

The idea that the universe is an indivisible whole is very clearly false. If it's indivisible, it means it's made of exactly 1 part. However, there is me and there is you. There are, in other words, at least 2 parts of the universe. This means that the universe we live in isn't indivisible. It's really that simple. Unfortunately, some people don't know how to think.

And your claims are even more idiotic.

You still operate under that naive representationalism of Locke who thought that the extent to which a map is an accurate representation of reality is the extent to which it resembles it, i.e. looks like it. Taken to its extreme, this means that, in order for a map to be a perfectly accurate representation of reality, it must be numerically identical to it, i.e. it must be the same thing as reality. But since no map is reality itself -- for even in the case of being an identical copy of it, it still is a separate thing from it -- it follows that our maps are necessarily inaccurate -- useful illusions at best. As such, the thing-in-itself, i.e. reality itself, is nothing like what we imagine it to be and it is forever unknowable to us.

And that's why you, Locke and other Anglo-Saxon and German philosophers who followed in the footsteps of Locke, despite rejecting direct realism, are still very much under the influence of it.

Time to embrace language-laden representationalism, dummy, and give up on the Lockean resemblance nonsense.