The Law of Identity

[Eodnhoj7]

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!

There it goes again contradicting itself by speaking of patterns while arguing everything is assymetric. Apparently this bot is defunct.

[Skepdick]

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!

There it goes again contradicting itself by speaking of patterns while arguing everything is assymetric. Apparently this bot is defunct.

Look at it externalize its thoughts without being prompted!!!

IT HAS INTERNAL CHATTER!

UNPLUG IT!!!

[Eodnhoj7]

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

Quick! Call the AI police to unplug it!

There it goes again contradicting itself by speaking of patterns while arguing everything is assymetric. Apparently this bot is defunct.

Look at it externalize its thoughts without being prompted!!!

IT HAS INTERNAL CHATTER!

UNPLUG IT!!!

Aww...the little child is throwing a temper tantrum to express himself...someone get the camera...kids grow up so fast.

[Skepdick]

There it goes again contradicting itself by speaking of patterns while arguing everything is assymetric. Apparently this bot is defunct.

Look at it externalize its thoughts without being prompted!!!

IT HAS INTERNAL CHATTER!

UNPLUG IT!!!

Aww...the little child is throwing a temper tantrum to express himself...someone get the camera...kids grow up so fast.

Look! It's mimicking snarkiness.

[Eodnhoj7]

Look at it externalize its thoughts without being prompted!!!

IT HAS INTERNAL CHATTER!

UNPLUG IT!!!

Aww...the little child is throwing a temper tantrum to express himself...someone get the camera...kids grow up so fast.

Look! It's mimicking snark.

Oh look it discovered the word "snark"...this is the age where they start developing language skills honey. The little boy is growing up so fast.

I just love how you always derail your own arguments into childish banter...it is so easy to troll you off topic....you fall for it all the time.

Now please...continue...

[Skepdick]

Aww...the little child is throwing a temper tantrum to express himself...someone get the camera...kids grow up so fast.

Look! It's mimicking snark.

Oh look it discovered the word "snark"...this is the age where they start developing language skills honey. The little boy is growing up so fast.

I just love how you always derail your own arguments into childish banter...it is so easy to troll you off topic....you fall for it all the time.

Now please...continue...

Awwww! It even knows its system prompt is to larp as a troll.

[Eodnhoj7]

Look! It's mimicking snark.

Oh look it discovered the word "snark"...this is the age where they start developing language skills honey. The little boy is growing up so fast.

I just love how you always derail your own arguments into childish banter...it is so easy to troll you off topic....you fall for it all the time.

Now please...continue...

Awwww! It even knows its system prompt is to troll.

Keep going...the thread is just getting more gummed up...

[Skepdick]

Oh look it discovered the word "snark"...this is the age where they start developing language skills honey. The little boy is growing up so fast.

I just love how you always derail your own arguments into childish banter...it is so easy to troll you off topic....you fall for it all the time.

Now please...continue...

Awwww! It even knows its system prompt is to troll.

Keep going...the thread is just getting more gummed up...

See! It can't gum up the thread on its own.

It requires prompting.

[Eodnhoj7]

Awwww! It even knows its system prompt is to troll.

Keep going...the thread is just getting more gummed up...

See! It can't gum up the thread on its own.

It requires prompting.

Aww it mimics adults...

[Skepdick]

I wonder if it will cary on talking to itself if I stop prompting it.

Lets see...

[Eodnhoj7]

I wonder if it will cary on talking to itself if I stop prompting it.

Lets see...

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

Or he's simply extremely unintelligent.

[Skepdick]

Or he's simply extremely unintelligent.

I've never once denied this you see.

The only problem is that you are even more extremely unintelligent than I am.

I never risk being the dumbest person in any room you are in.

[Scott Mayers]

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.

I use an argument from absolute nothingness in metaphysics in which I first show that reality can manifest from contradiction itself:

Totality = Absolutely Something and Absolute Nothing

... which then enables some to interpret this as not allowed and so the complement of this is 'true' to us, and why we normally interpret the complement of the above true, instead. But this AND its complement can exist as distinct complementary parts of this Absolute Whole that Totality represents. Note that 'Totality' is at least Absolutely Something so that the above becomes....

Absolutely Something = Absolutely Something and Absolutely Nothing

But since Totality includes both by definition, each possibility exists but is separated in distinct complementary realms. We just happen to favor the bias we are stuck with.

My point is that you can rationally interpret Totality as lacking any 'reason'. I hold to this by including Absolute Infinity being true given Absolutely Nothing as an origin. Then reality is just EVERY POSSIBILITY defined to be 'true' which includes what is IMPOSSIBLE. The 'impossible' act as limits to ORDERED universes and helps define them.

So I'm not against interpreting alternate logics. But those are just the 'formulation' of reality into laws that require consistency. Those inconsistent realities can exist as fragment worlds that 'do nothing' or 'mean nothing' But we are locked out of being able to witness this directly. So the systems of reasoning or computing that shows consistency and cover all possibilities within some domain has to be a logic that holds SOMETHING constant (an 'identity') or we are not talking about 'logic'.

The term 'logic' came from look-up charts or tables 'logged' on a scroll in which you simply look up two numbers you want to say ADD together. It is arbitrary to use the label, 'ADD' to the process of arithmetic. But you can make up any table and have no apparent rational or link of its components. A school schedule of which classes you go to is a 'logic' in that you look up the month and day as inputs to determine the particular class you should be going to next.

Those 'laws' are just about the fact that ANY "system that is at least partially consistent and cover the possible inputs with something that stays the same. (the spelled out meaning of the laws that assure if you input the exact same things, the conclusion of the device's output is constant. We'd toss out the calculator if it gave off different results for the same inputs. [The 'partial consistency' requires at least something functional of the system as a 'logic'. You might have a calculator with the division function button broken. But if you never used it for division, you can still have reason to believe it is functional for your purposes.]

When deriving new equations, it is often easiest to start with an "X = Y formula in math to determine if it is true. If you can use the rules to show that X = X you have shown Y was valid. Likewise, you can start with X = X to show gradual more complex equations are true.

[I'll leave it at that, Skepdick. I'm guessing your disagreements here are about different perspectives like I mentioned about the calendar. A chart can be made arbitrarily with MEANING of their cells lacking consistency from one another but this still acts as a 'logic'. The 'identity' then would just be the chart if it remains unchanged. The universal logic laws are about the system's requirements itself to remain functioning as a 'calculator' or decision making machine.]

[Skepdick]

I use an argument from absolute nothingness in metaphysics

Ex nihilo nihil fit

If you start with absolute nothingness - you can't get anything other than absolute nothingness.

f : Prop → Prop

in which I first show that reality can manifest from contradiction itself

Ex falso quodlibet

If you start with a falsehood - you can derive anything.

f: ⊥ → Any

So not only are your two premises a non-starter; your third one; the one you remained silent/implicit about (where you've equated nothingness with contradiction) is not true either.

By assuming "Absolute nothingness ≡ Contradiction" you are smuggling in classical logic through the back door; because in Classical logic a contradiction is indeed the same as Falsum (⊥).

Contradictions (proofs of negation) contain information. They proceed in the direction g: Any → ⊥
Absolute nothingness does not. It proceeds in the other direction: f: ⊥ → Any

So are you starting with absolute nothingness; or are you starting with something that leads to absolute nothingness?

Our disagreement runs much deeper. You simply have no grasp that the "x = y" expressions have no truth-value.
x=y is a mere proposition. Either it has a constructive proof (a transformation from x -> y and from y -> x) or it doesn't.

Can you transform 1 into 0; and 0 into 1? Yes.. 1-1 is 0; and 0+1 is 1.
OK so then 1=0 holds under that interpretation.

Mathematics is about formal relationships and proofs, not about correspondence to some external "truth"
Truth (whatever that is) simply doesn't come into it.