The Law of Identity

[Magnus Anderson]

It doesn't really matter, Skeppie. It's pretty clear to me it would be very hard for you to grasp the fact that 1 = 0 is a closed statement. So let's put it aside and try something simpler instead.

I am waiting for you to show us a thing that exists in 2 different states at the same time.

Don't give me your usual, "Are you identical to yourself from a moment ago?" That's a question that has nothing to do with the Law of Identity, let alone with the above.

Try something else.

[Skepdick]

It doesn't really matter, Skeppie. It's pretty clear to me it would be very hard for you to grasp the fact that 1 = 0 is a closed statement.

Do you understand that the statement "1 = 0 is a closed statement" is itself an open statement unless you provide the VALUE of the expression in the closure domain.

Is it closed in R (which axiomatization?!?) with value 0?
is it closed in R with value 1?
Is it closed in R with value 0.5?
Is it closed in N with value 0?
Is it closed in N with value 1?

For closure it is absolutely necessary but insufficient to say "it's closed in X with value Y."

I am waiting for you to show us a thing that exists in 2 different states at the same time.

Sure thing. A qubit.

[Magnus Anderson]

Do you understand that the statement "1 = 0 is a closed statement" is itself an open statement unless you provide the VALUE of the expression in the closure domain.

Is it closed in R and the value is 0?
is it closed in R and the value is 1?
Is it closed in R and the value is 0.5?
Is it closed in N and the value is 0?
Is it closed in N and the value is 1?

As I said, Skeppie, you're beyond help. So why are you pushing it?

Sure thing. A qubit.

A quibit does not exist in 2 different states at the same time.

Try again.

[Skepdick]

A quibit does not exist in 2 different states at the same time.

Try again.

Why are you lying?

[Skepdick]

As I said, Skeppie, you're beyond help. So why are you pushing it?

Naturally. Anyone who doesn't need help is "beyond help".

That's why I am helping you.

At least one of us knows that the other is exploiting Cunningham's law.

[Scott Mayers]

I cannot convince you of anything and won't waste any further time, still no offense to you personally.

That is the only sensible thing you've said. For somebody who pretends to value time you are temporally blind in your formalisms.

x=x doesn't ALWAYS hold.

When you stop trying to convince me that I am wrong and you start convincing yourself that you are wrong; only then can the dialogue resume.

I think you are probably just trolling these issues for some unknown reason.

I recognized, studied, and even created logics that are muli-variable and these are BUILT on those common laws as well as combining distinct variable logics into larger systems. You just may need to express them indirectly in alternate forms within your own system and possibly add more postulates. Your pretense of favoring some 'alternative' laws requires you do the work to prove it. You are not only denying those laws are minimum, you are denying that ANY such laws proposed are true at all. So you're just playing here or you'd have to be very dense.

[Skepdick]

you are denying that ANY such laws proposed are true at all.

BINGO!

Laws have no truth-values. They are operational constructs. They either hold; or they don't; or somewhere in between.
You can operationalize that as true (when it holds); and false (when it doesn't); and maybe (when you don't know).

"x = x is true" isn't a discovery about the nature of reality, it's a design choice about how we define the equality operator in classical logic

When we say "the law of gravity holds," we're not making a truth claim about the universe, we're describing how our model behaves under certain conditions.

You are confused because you are doing metaphysics. There are just different operational choices with different consequences. Some might be more useful for certain purposes, but that's pragmatic, not metaphysical.

[Eodnhoj7]

you are denying that ANY such laws proposed are true at all.

BINGO!

Laws have no truth-values. They are operational constructs. They either hold; or they don't; or somewhere in between.
You can operationalize that as true (when it holds); and false (when it doesn't); and maybe (when you don't know).

"x = x is true" isn't a discovery about the nature of reality, it's a design choice about how we define the equality operator in classical logic

When we say "the law of gravity holds," we're not making a truth claim about the universe, we're describing how our model behaves under certain conditions.

You are confused because you are doing metaphysics. There are just different operational choices with different consequences. Some might be more useful for certain purposes, but that's pragmatic, not metaphysical.

Facepalm...

Saying "laws are operational constructs" cannot be true if there are no truth values. What you argue, by your own standards, cannot by true.

[Skepdick]

Facepalm...

Saying "laws are operational constructs" cannot be true if there are no truth values. What you argue, by your own standards, cannot by true.

You are 100% correct. Within your misunderstanding of my point.

[Eodnhoj7]

Facepalm...

Saying "laws are operational constructs" cannot be true if there are no truth values. What you argue, by your own standards, cannot by true.

You are 100% correct. Within your misunderstanding of my point.

Misunderstanding of readers is relative to the inability of an author to properly portray a point.

I don't think you understand the implications of your own point.

If laws are equivalent to operational constructs than anything by nature of being operative is an operational constructs and by default anything that exists can be said to be a law by virtue of operating. Law becomes a meaningless word. Operational construct becomes a meaningless word.

Everything you argue cannot even be true let alone non-false as the slippery slope of definition is inevitable the moment you assigned meaning to the words you premised your argument on.

[Skepdick]

Facepalm...

Saying "laws are operational constructs" cannot be true if there are no truth values. What you argue, by your own standards, cannot by true.

You are 100% correct. Within your misunderstanding of my point.

Misunderstanding of readers is relative to the inability of an author to properly portray a point.

I don't think you understand the implications of your own point.

If laws are equivalent to operational constructs than anything by nature of being operative is an operational constructs and by default anything that exists can be said to be a law by virtue of operating. Law becomes a meaningless word. Operational construct becomes a meaningless word.

Everything you argue cannot even be true let alone non-false as the slippery slope of definition is inevitable the moment you assigned meaning to the words you premised your argument on.

Look at it vomiting tokens!

What do they even mean?

[Eodnhoj7]

You are 100% correct. Within your misunderstanding of my point.

Misunderstanding of readers is relative to the inability of an author to properly portray a point.

I don't think you understand the implications of your own point.

If laws are equivalent to operational constructs than anything by nature of being operative is an operational constructs and by default anything that exists can be said to be a law by virtue of operating. Law becomes a meaningless word. Operational construct becomes a meaningless word.

Everything you argue cannot even be true let alone non-false as the slippery slope of definition is inevitable the moment you assigned meaning to the words you premised your argument on.

Look at it vomiting tokens!

What do they even mean?

Why do you desire meaning and what is this meaning you seek?

[Skepdick]

Misunderstanding of readers is relative to the inability of an author to properly portray a point.

I don't think you understand the implications of your own point.

If laws are equivalent to operational constructs than anything by nature of being operative is an operational constructs and by default anything that exists can be said to be a law by virtue of operating. Law becomes a meaningless word. Operational construct becomes a meaningless word.

Everything you argue cannot even be true let alone non-false as the slippery slope of definition is inevitable the moment you assigned meaning to the words you premised your argument on.

Look at it vomiting tokens!

What do they even mean?

Why do you desire meaning and what is this meaning you seek?

Wow! It vomited a question!

Is it becoming conscious?!?

[Eodnhoj7]

Look at it vomiting tokens!

What do they even mean?

Why do you desire meaning and what is this meaning you seek?

Wow! It vomited a question!

Is it becoming conscious?!?

Oh look, it repeats the word "vomit" like a broken record and then argues everything is assymetric...is this thing stuck in self-contradicting feedback loop? Do you even have a coherent definition of "vomit" that does not differ in meaning infinitely every time you use it?

[Skepdick]

Why do you desire meaning and what is this meaning you seek?

Wow! It vomited a question!

Is it becoming conscious?!?

Oh look, it repeats the word "vomit" like a broken record and then argues everything is assymetric...is this thing stuck in self-contradicting feedback loop? Do you even have a coherent definition of "vomit" that does not differ in meaning infinitely every time you use it?

Wow! It's even beginning to spot meta-paterns!

Quick! Call the AI police to unplug it!