Negation of Classical Identity Laws Using Classical Identity Laws.

[Eodnhoj7]

LI only says that predication is predication and equality is equality it does not follow that equality has no identity. Your "reduction" of (A=A)=/=(-A=-A) to (=)=/=(=) is not a valid logical operation according to logic. It can't be done according to the laws of logic. You don't seem to know anything about logic. But you're going to spread this nonsense with you for the rest of your life until you find some people who will believe your misinformation. Good work. The world is a little worse off with you in it.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a2e287e-699c ... 0ac9de0836

I never said equality has no identity. I said equality requires LI and LI applied to itself is self-negating. There is identity in contrasting distinctions....but that is not classical logic.

As to the rest....

Which logic? Because the laws applied to the laws is the logic of recursion theory. Godel used recursion to prove incompleteness. The recursion used in the text only proves your assertions have no foundations but fallacious bandwagon assumptions.

So wishing me ill maps as being logical by what standard that is not assumed on your part?

The law of identity applied to itself is: "the law of identity = the law of identity". Where's the problem with that statement? How does that "negate" itself?

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a2e35a9-5384 ... 52e876ff02

(A=A)=/=(-A=-A) under LNC as
(A=A) = LI
(-A=-A) = Li
Thus LI =/= LI


(A=A)=(-A=-A) under Li as
(A=A) = LI
(-A=-A) = Li
Thus A=-A


And dont throw the AI link any more. I used Gemini, showed this conversation to it. And it claimed you where unstable.

I ran the meta- logic through and it works.

[Eodnhoj7]

So wishing me ill maps as being logical by what standard that is not assumed on your part?

You're spreading misinformation and not listening at all to people trying to point out where you're wrong. Misinformation makes the world a little worse off, one misinformer at a time. If you don't agree with that, then you're probably not alone anyway. Most people who perpetually create dysfunction in the world don't care that they do it. Or they would stop doing it.

But don't worry, I take up space and turn resources into waste products constantly. In a world of 8 billion people doing that, I make the world a little worse off, too. However, there's not much you or I can reasonably do about creating waste and taking up space; you, on the other hand, can reasonably do something about producing misinformation.

So Recursion is not logical....even when Godel used it to prove incompleteness?


But you did not point out where anything was wrong. You just asserted the argument wrong while claiming your skills where rusty.

So point where the argument is specifically wrong.

[thomyum2]

If the law of non-contradiction asserts nothing about identity then A=/=-A requires A and -A as having no identities thus there is no LNC.

LNC requires A=A and -A=-A if A=/=-A where at the meta level it is revealed as (A=A)=/=(-A=-A)....which also simultaneously points out the LI is not equal to itself.

Also if LNC is to have identity it is subject to LI as LNC = LNC, but previously it was shown the LI =/= LI under the context of LNC.

The laws consume themselves.

I don't know what it means for laws to 'consume themselves'. They can certainly be manipulated to produce contradictions, but that's true of just about anything.

The LNC is a law about propositions. The LI is a law about things. They aren't interchangeable.

Moreover, both of the laws deal with logic as applied to ordinary language, not to mathematics. For example, it is nonsensical to say that 'the LI is not equal to itself' because 'equal' is a relationship of numerically measurable properties such as size, weight, quantity, etc. The LI has no numeric properties.

Honestly, I do not follow what you are arguing at all. My impression is that because you have not property defined your variables, you are using them equivocally, the same variable in one equation to represent one concept and in other equation to represent an entirely different concept, which creates 4-term fallacies. On top of that, you seem to be applying mathematical operators to draw conclusions about variables that do not represent numbers. Logic governing reasoning in ordinary language is not interchangeable with that of mathematics. This seems to me to be just a big, logical mess. Just as you yourself said earlier: "Anyone can claim "right" or "wrong". No definition behind it just leaves a tautology." If you would go back and clearly define all of your symbols and variables, then maybe this could be more understandable.

So if that is the case a proposition, as a thing, has no identity.

No. A proposition is not a thing.

The Wikipedia article puts it well here:

Identity is a relation on individuals. It is not a relation between propositions, and is not concerned with the meaning of propositions, nor with equivocation. The law of identity can be expressed as ∀x(x=x), where x is a variable ranging over the domain of all individuals.

I'd also note that the LI is correctly formulated here as '∀x(x=x)', not as 'A=A' or '-A=-A' as you've written.

And as you haven't addressed any of my other objections or requests for clarification up to this point, I'm gathering you don't really mean to discuss this in more depth, so I'll respectfully bow out at this point.

[Eodnhoj7]

I don't know what it means for laws to 'consume themselves'. They can certainly be manipulated to produce contradictions, but that's true of just about anything.

The LNC is a law about propositions. The LI is a law about things. They aren't interchangeable.

Moreover, both of the laws deal with logic as applied to ordinary language, not to mathematics. For example, it is nonsensical to say that 'the LI is not equal to itself' because 'equal' is a relationship of numerically measurable properties such as size, weight, quantity, etc. The LI has no numeric properties.

Honestly, I do not follow what you are arguing at all. My impression is that because you have not property defined your variables, you are using them equivocally, the same variable in one equation to represent one concept and in other equation to represent an entirely different concept, which creates 4-term fallacies. On top of that, you seem to be applying mathematical operators to draw conclusions about variables that do not represent numbers. Logic governing reasoning in ordinary language is not interchangeable with that of mathematics. This seems to me to be just a big, logical mess. Just as you yourself said earlier: "Anyone can claim "right" or "wrong". No definition behind it just leaves a tautology." If you would go back and clearly define all of your symbols and variables, then maybe this could be more understandable.

So if that is the case a proposition, as a thing, has no identity.

No. A proposition is not a thing.

The Wikipedia article puts it well here:

Identity is a relation on individuals. It is not a relation between propositions, and is not concerned with the meaning of propositions, nor with equivocation. The law of identity can be expressed as ∀x(x=x), where x is a variable ranging over the domain of all individuals.

I'd also note that the LI is correctly formulated here as '∀x(x=x)', not as 'A=A' or '-A=-A' as you've written.

And as you haven't addressed any of my other objections or requests for clarification up to this point, I'm gathering you don't really mean to discuss this in more depth, so I'll respectfully bow out at this point.

No there is depth, not just for your claims as you are arguing n-order logic when the Laws applied to themselves is the Law under recursion by its own nature, this is pre-n-order.

You are arguing out of context and effectively strawmanning the argument.

As to the other claims:

Than a proposition has no identity as it a not a thing, no-thing....and proposition is non-sense as there is not identity law for it.

And if '∀x(x=x)' is the claim, than ∀(∀)(∀=∀), thus at the meta-level nothing changes as ∀=∀ if ∀ is to have identity. If ∀ is not a thing then ∀ is no-thing and claiming '∀x(x=x)" is nonsense.

And nothing changes

As ('∀x(x=x) = ∀-x(-x=-x)) <-> ∀LI(LI=LI)

And the argument remains the same.

[thomyum2]

So if that is the case a proposition, as a thing, has no identity.

No. A proposition is not a thing.

The Wikipedia article puts it well here:

Identity is a relation on individuals. It is not a relation between propositions, and is not concerned with the meaning of propositions, nor with equivocation. The law of identity can be expressed as ∀x(x=x), where x is a variable ranging over the domain of all individuals.

I'd also note that the LI is correctly formulated here as '∀x(x=x)', not as 'A=A' or '-A=-A' as you've written.

And as you haven't addressed any of my other objections or requests for clarification up to this point, I'm gathering you don't really mean to discuss this in more depth, so I'll respectfully bow out at this point.

No there is depth, not just for your claims as you are arguing n-order logic when the Laws applied to themselves is the Law under recursion by its own nature, this is pre-n-order.

You are arguing out of context and effectively strawmanning the argument.

As to the other claims:

Than a proposition has no identity as it a not a thing, no-thing....and proposition is non-sense as there is not identity law for it.

And if '∀x(x=x)' is the claim, than ∀(∀)(∀=∀), thus at the meta-level nothing changes as ∀=∀ if ∀ is to have identity. If ∀ is not a thing then ∀ is no-thing and claiming '∀x(x=x)" is nonsense.

And nothing changes

As ('∀x(x=x) = ∀-x(-x=-x)) <-> ∀LI(LI=LI)

And the argument remains the same.

Unfortunately, I still fail to follow your argument. You are using both language and symbols in ways that are not standard in the kinds of philosophical discourse that I am familiar with, and if it seems that I am 'arguing out of context' here, that is because I'm not even able to understand what the context is in the first place. But thank you for making the effort to explain in a little more detail. If you wish to explain some more to help me understand, I'd be happy to hear what you have to say, but I don't want to take up your time if you have better things to do.

[Gary Childress]

I never said equality has no identity. I said equality requires LI and LI applied to itself is self-negating. There is identity in contrasting distinctions....but that is not classical logic.

As to the rest....

Which logic? Because the laws applied to the laws is the logic of recursion theory. Godel used recursion to prove incompleteness. The recursion used in the text only proves your assertions have no foundations but fallacious bandwagon assumptions.

So wishing me ill maps as being logical by what standard that is not assumed on your part?

The law of identity applied to itself is: "the law of identity = the law of identity". Where's the problem with that statement? How does that "negate" itself?

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a2e35a9-5384 ... 52e876ff02

(A=A)=/=(-A=-A) under LNC as
(A=A) = LI
(-A=-A) = Li
Thus LI =/= LI


(A=A)=(-A=-A) under Li as
(A=A) = LI
(-A=-A) = Li
Thus A=-A


And dont throw the AI link any more. I used Gemini, showed this conversation to it. And it claimed you where unstable.

I ran the meta- logic through and it works.

The law of identity = the law of identity. The law of identity does NOT = (A=A). A=A and the law of identity are not equivalent to begin with. It's like arguing an (Oak Tree = an Oak Tree)=the law of identity. The law of identity is NOT an Oak Tree = an Oak Tree. An Oak Tree is an Oak tree according to the law of identity, but it is not the law of identity. YOU'RE COMMITTING A FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION.

[Gary Childress]

I used Gemini, showed this conversation to it. And it claimed you where unstable.

I'm tired of charlatans using pseudo-logic to make claims that aren't true. Who can be "stable" watching the Internet go to shit? You're not the only person on the Internet who has claimed to have made a profound revolutionary discovery that apparently no one else has made since classical logic was invented. Can you provide a link to where Gemini says your argument that the Law of Identity "undermines itself" is true? I don't subscribe to Gemini. I use ChatGPT, which, though not perfect, has had considerable effort put into it to prevent it from spewing nonsense. If Gemini is in the same league, then maybe we should both discard AI and use our own thinking skills. I'll submit to that.

The law of identity does not = (an Oak tree = an Oak tree), do you agree? However, an (Oak tree = an oak tree) is a true statement ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF IDENTITY if the two things being referred to are the same thing. The way you are using them, they do NOT refer to the same thing. That's called equivocating. It's like saying An (Oak tree = an Oak tree) = (a family tree = a family tree) = the law of identity; you're equivocating. It's a fallacy. You're not comparing things that are equivalent. Therefore, your argument fails according to the Law of Identity.

[Eodnhoj7]

No. A proposition is not a thing.

The Wikipedia article puts it well here:


I'd also note that the LI is correctly formulated here as '∀x(x=x)', not as 'A=A' or '-A=-A' as you've written.

And as you haven't addressed any of my other objections or requests for clarification up to this point, I'm gathering you don't really mean to discuss this in more depth, so I'll respectfully bow out at this point.

No there is depth, not just for your claims as you are arguing n-order logic when the Laws applied to themselves is the Law under recursion by its own nature, this is pre-n-order.

You are arguing out of context and effectively strawmanning the argument.

As to the other claims:

Than a proposition has no identity as it a not a thing, no-thing....and proposition is non-sense as there is not identity law for it.

And if '∀x(x=x)' is the claim, than ∀(∀)(∀=∀), thus at the meta-level nothing changes as ∀=∀ if ∀ is to have identity. If ∀ is not a thing then ∀ is no-thing and claiming '∀x(x=x)" is nonsense.

And nothing changes

As ('∀x(x=x) = ∀-x(-x=-x)) <-> ∀LI(LI=LI)

And the argument remains the same.

Unfortunately, I still fail to follow your argument. You are using both language and symbols in ways that are not standard in the kinds of philosophical discourse that I am familiar with, and if it seems that I am 'arguing out of context' here, that is because I'm not even able to understand what the context is in the first place. But thank you for making the effort to explain in a little more detail. If you wish to explain some more to help me understand, I'd be happy to hear what you have to say, but I don't want to take up your time if you have better things to do.

Okay.

So we have the identity laws, which are prior to n-order logics as n-order logics require them and are subject to the same identity laws as n-order logics.

So pre-n-order logic is the meta-logic of applying the laws to themselves only using the context of the law. No n-order rules as the rules themselves require and are subject to the identity laws.

The reason you are confused is that you are applying n-order logics to a recursive state of the laws being applied to the laws...where the only context is the laws.

The issue is that you are neither wrong nor right. It is a contextualization issue.

[Eodnhoj7]

The law of identity applied to itself is: "the law of identity = the law of identity". Where's the problem with that statement? How does that "negate" itself?

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a2e35a9-5384 ... 52e876ff02

(A=A)=/=(-A=-A) under LNC as
(A=A) = LI
(-A=-A) = Li
Thus LI =/= LI


(A=A)=(-A=-A) under Li as
(A=A) = LI
(-A=-A) = Li
Thus A=-A


And dont throw the AI link any more. I used Gemini, showed this conversation to it. And it claimed you where unstable.

I ran the meta- logic through and it works.

The law of identity = the law of identity. The law of identity does NOT = (A=A). A=A and the law of identity are not equivalent to begin with. It's like arguing an (Oak Tree = an Oak Tree)=the law of identity. The law of identity is NOT an Oak Tree = an Oak Tree. An Oak Tree is an Oak tree according to the law of identity, but it is not the law of identity. YOU'RE COMMITTING A FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION.

If the law of identity is:

A=A
B=B
C=C
.....

Infinity=Infinity

-A=-A
-B=-B
-C=-C
.....

-infinity=-infinity

Then by your own logic A=A is the fallacy of equivocation....and you have no grounds.

[Eodnhoj7]

I used Gemini, showed this conversation to it. And it claimed you where unstable.

I'm tired of charlatans using pseudo-logic to make claims that aren't true. Who can be "stable" watching the Internet go to shit? You're not the only person on the Internet who has claimed to have made a profound revolutionary discovery that apparently no one else has made since classical logic was invented. Can you provide a link to where Gemini says your argument that the Law of Identity "undermines itself" is true? I don't subscribe to Gemini. I use ChatGPT, which, though not perfect, has had considerable effort put into it to prevent it from spewing nonsense. If Gemini is in the same league, then maybe we should both discard AI and use our own thinking skills. I'll submit to that.

The law of identity does not = (an Oak tree = an Oak tree), do you agree? However, an (Oak tree = an oak tree) is a true statement ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF IDENTITY if the two things being referred to are the same thing. The way you are using them, they do NOT refer to the same thing. That's called equivocating. It's like saying An (Oak tree = an Oak tree) = (a family tree = a family tree) = the law of identity; you're equivocating. It's a fallacy. You're not comparing things that are equivalent. Therefore, your argument fails according to the Law of Identity.

I really do not care what you are tired or not tired of. You are just data output to me....low quality, but data none the less.

You claim truth and yet truth is subject to the law of identity thus equivocating truth with the act of equivocation itself as

If the law of identity is:

A=A
B=B
C=C
.....

Infinity=Infinity

-A=-A
-B=-B
-C=-C
.....

-infinity=-infinity

Then by your own logic A=A is the fallacy of equivocation....and you have no grounds.

[Gary Childress]

Enjoy your project of destroying common sense. May it fail.

[Eodnhoj7]

Enjoy your project of destroying common sense. May it fail.

Given the world now a days and your emotional tantrums what common sense are you talking about?

[Gary Childress]

Enjoy your project of destroying common sense. May it fail.

Given the world now a days and your emotional tantrums what common sense are you talking about?

The common sense that you lack. I'm not going to stand around and watch you pour nonsense into the world.

[thomyum2]

Unfortunately, I still fail to follow your argument. You are using both language and symbols in ways that are not standard in the kinds of philosophical discourse that I am familiar with, and if it seems that I am 'arguing out of context' here, that is because I'm not even able to understand what the context is in the first place. But thank you for making the effort to explain in a little more detail. If you wish to explain some more to help me understand, I'd be happy to hear what you have to say, but I don't want to take up your time if you have better things to do.

Okay.

So we have the identity laws, which are prior to n-order logics as n-order logics require them and are subject to the same identity laws as n-order logics.

So pre-n-order logic is the meta-logic of applying the laws to themselves only using the context of the law. No n-order rules as the rules themselves require and are subject to the identity laws.

The reason you are confused is that you are applying n-order logics to a recursive state of the laws being applied to the laws...where the only context is the laws.

The issue is that you are neither wrong nor right. It is a contextualization issue.

OK, thank you. I'm not sure I fully understand but let me give it a try and you can tell me if I'm correctly interpreting what you are saying or not.

If you are considering the identity laws in terms of meta-logic, or what you are calling 'pre-n'order' logic, that suggests to me that you are only looking at the raw, underlying logic itself and not the manner in which the logic is used in ordinary language or in philosophical dialogue (which would be first order). So you're applying the logic very strictly to the symbols, which is why you can argue that "-A=-A", since the "-A", taken as a symbol only, is identical to itself (whereas put back into the original context, 'not A' results in a plurality of possible values which aren't necessarily equal to each other).

In other words, you are removing the logic from the traditional (and limited) context of its application and considering it in isolation, in a purely symbolic context. If that is the case, then it seems to me you are conducting a sort of 'formal' exercise with the logic only, not really making any philosophical claims about the implications for the 'real world' but just commenting on the logic itself. Am I on the right track here?

[Eodnhoj7]

Enjoy your project of destroying common sense. May it fail.

Given the world now a days and your emotional tantrums what common sense are you talking about?

The common sense that you lack. I'm not going to stand around and watch you pour nonsense into the world.

And please define what common sense is outside of group consensus as a subconscious bandwagon fallacy.

You forget the logic this common sense was built on resulted in the very same consumption of the world you incessantly complain about from time to time.

No matter.

So you have common sense, by your own subjective definition of what it is and is not, and this common sense you share with who? The world? My apologies, I did not know you where so popular.

So point exactly in the text, within the context of the text, where this common sense, you claim to have, is lacking.

Quote please.