Negation of Classical Identity Laws Using Classical Identity Laws.

[Eodnhoj7]

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?

Close.

I am not making implications for the real world, or unreal world. Nothing about the world. To be precise I am making implications, and argument, over the nature of the identity of identity itself from which the identity of "real/unreal" or "world/not world" are derived.

This derivation is simple.

No n-order logic can be used.

Why?

Because n-order logic is subject to identity. By being subject to identity n-order logic cannot be logically used as it cannot contain the identity by which it is derived.

Can n-order logic result in clarifying identity? Yes of course.

But identity itself? No.

The reason?

N-order logic is subject to LI and LNC as:

NOL=NOL and NOL=/=-NOL.

So what remains as the primitive from which n-order is derived is the identity laws.

So the identity laws. They cannot be logically argued from n-order, as previously explained, so the identity laws have to be applied to the identity laws.

Why?

To see there nature beyond being assumed as true.

And why that?

To see the potential of further n-order logics derived if the foundations are re-adjusted or seen in a different light.

So the identity law question?

Recursion is used....as you can see if you read the original text. The same recursion that Godel used for the incompleteness theorems to expose the foundations of math.

But instead of exposing foundations of math, or more specifically in this case n-order logic, what is exposed is the foundations of identity itself....that which math and logic are built upon.

[Gary Childress]

Just pulling from the first example I happened to come across:

I said equality requires LI and LI applied to itself is self-negating.

If it's not common sense to you that LI applies to itself and is NOT self-negating. Then can you show how it is? So far from what I've seen it involves contorting logic to arrive at the conclusion. You claim:

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

Common sense should tell you that you are wrong. I can certainly tell. If you can't tell, then good luck running around believing that A = not the case A.

[Eodnhoj7]

Just pulling from the first example I happened to come across:

I said equality requires LI and LI applied to itself is self-negating.

If it's not common sense to you that LI applies to itself and is NOT self-negating. Then can you show how it is? So far from what I've seen it involves contorting logic to arrive at the conclusion. You claim:

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

Common sense should tell you that you are wrong. I can certainly tell. If you can't tell, then good luck running around believing that A = not the case A.

Its real simple the law of identity does not always equal itself when scaled as the scaling of the law of identity results in unequal scales. The law of identity is a scaling mechanism by degree of its universal application across scales by said scales.

This has been covered a multitude of times. You just choose not to read, requestion what was answered, and then resort to emotionally charged responses about logic all the while arguing a claim, just a claim, over what it is and is not.

I think you fail to see the obvious. I am not arguing against classical identity, I am showing its nature when applied to itself. Identity exists. Logic exists. But there is a limit.

[Gary Childress]

Just pulling from the first example I happened to come across:

I said equality requires LI and LI applied to itself is self-negating.

If it's not common sense to you that LI applies to itself and is NOT self-negating. Then can you show how it is? So far from what I've seen it involves contorting logic to arrive at the conclusion. You claim:

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

Common sense should tell you that you are wrong. I can certainly tell. If you can't tell, then good luck running around believing that A = not the case A.

Its real simple the law of identity does not always equal itself when scaled as the scaling of the law of identity results in unequal scales. The law of identity is a scaling mechanism by degree of its universal application across scales by said scales.

This has been covered a multitude of times. You just choose not to read, requestion what was answered, and then resort to emotionally charged responses about logic all the while arguing a claim, just a claim, over what it is and is not.

I think you fail to see the obvious. I am not arguing against classical identity, I am showing its nature when applied to itself. Identity exists. Logic exists. But there is a limit.

The Identity Law = the Identity Law. When you argue you use the identity law to ensure that your statements aren't equivocations. Equivocation is a fallacy. Equivocation is not part of the Identity law. The Identity law does not = (A=A) it equals itself according the identity law. (A=A) is true under the identity law but it is not true that (A=A) = the Identity law. It's equivocation. You're coming up with a "limit" that doesn't exist.

[Eodnhoj7]

Just pulling from the first example I happened to come across:



If it's not common sense to you that LI applies to itself and is NOT self-negating. Then can you show how it is? So far from what I've seen it involves contorting logic to arrive at the conclusion. You claim:



Common sense should tell you that you are wrong. I can certainly tell. If you can't tell, then good luck running around believing that A = not the case A.

Its real simple the law of identity does not always equal itself when scaled as the scaling of the law of identity results in unequal scales. The law of identity is a scaling mechanism by degree of its universal application across scales by said scales.

This has been covered a multitude of times. You just choose not to read, requestion what was answered, and then resort to emotionally charged responses about logic all the while arguing a claim, just a claim, over what it is and is not.

I think you fail to see the obvious. I am not arguing against classical identity, I am showing its nature when applied to itself. Identity exists. Logic exists. But there is a limit.

The Identity Law = the Identity Law. When you argue you use the identity law to ensure that your statements aren't equivocations. Equivocation is a fallacy. Equivocation is not part of the Identity law. The Identity law does not = (A=A) it equals itself according the identity law. (A=A) is true under the identity law but it is not true that (A=A) = the Identity law. It's equivocation. You're coming up with a "limit" that doesn't exist.

So the Law of Identity does not equal "A=A" and yet the variable of A allows the LI to be inserted, as well as imnumberable other things?

So what exactly does the law of identity mean if it does not equivocate to anything?

And why argue against the claim "LI does not equal LI" when you yourself say LI does not equal anything?

And the law of identity does not use equivocation....so what does "=" mean in "A=A" or "LI = LI"?

I have to be frank. Do you even have a slight clue about what you are talking about? Or are you just disconcerted as usual?

[Gary Childress]

Its real simple the law of identity does not always equal itself when scaled as the scaling of the law of identity results in unequal scales. The law of identity is a scaling mechanism by degree of its universal application across scales by said scales.

This has been covered a multitude of times. You just choose not to read, requestion what was answered, and then resort to emotionally charged responses about logic all the while arguing a claim, just a claim, over what it is and is not.

I think you fail to see the obvious. I am not arguing against classical identity, I am showing its nature when applied to itself. Identity exists. Logic exists. But there is a limit.

The Identity Law = the Identity Law. When you argue you use the identity law to ensure that your statements aren't equivocations. Equivocation is a fallacy. Equivocation is not part of the Identity law. The Identity law does not = (A=A) it equals itself according the identity law. (A=A) is true under the identity law but it is not true that (A=A) = the Identity law. It's equivocation. You're coming up with a "limit" that doesn't exist.

So the Law of Identity does not equal "A=A" and yet the variable of A allows the LI to be inserted, as well as imnumberable other things?

So what exactly does the law of identity mean if it does not equivocate to anything?

And why argue against the claim "LI does not equal LI" when you yourself say LI does not equal anything?

And the law of identity does not use equivocation....so what does "=" mean in "A=A" or "LI = LI"?

I have to be frank. Do you even have a slight clue about what you are talking about? Or are you just disconcerted as usual?

The law of identity = the law of identity. That is the law of identity. I did not say the law of identity "does not equal anything". A=A is not an equivocation. Do you not understand logic?

[Eodnhoj7]

The Identity Law = the Identity Law. When you argue you use the identity law to ensure that your statements aren't equivocations. Equivocation is a fallacy. Equivocation is not part of the Identity law. The Identity law does not = (A=A) it equals itself according the identity law. (A=A) is true under the identity law but it is not true that (A=A) = the Identity law. It's equivocation. You're coming up with a "limit" that doesn't exist.

So the Law of Identity does not equal "A=A" and yet the variable of A allows the LI to be inserted, as well as imnumberable other things?

So what exactly does the law of identity mean if it does not equivocate to anything?

And why argue against the claim "LI does not equal LI" when you yourself say LI does not equal anything?

And the law of identity does not use equivocation....so what does "=" mean in "A=A" or "LI = LI"?

I have to be frank. Do you even have a slight clue about what you are talking about? Or are you just disconcerted as usual?

The law of identity = the law of identity. That is the law of identity. I did not say the law of identity "does not equal anything". A=A is not an equivocation. Do you not understand logic?

So identity requires equivocating if LI=LI.

Actually if A=A is not the law of identity, and LI=LI only is the Law, then the Law does not equivocate to anything outside of its own tautology. So basically LI=LI, as not A=A or anything else, is a pure tautology that does not scale as scale would require some degree of equivocation.

What is A=A...if it is not the Law of Identity?

So "=" is not equivocation in "A=A"?

So "=" does not equal "equals".

Why are you even arguing at this point. If "=" is not equivocation, by your own standards, then what exactly is this logic you are defending by point to vague authorties?

[Gary Childress]

So the Law of Identity does not equal "A=A" and yet the variable of A allows the LI to be inserted, as well as imnumberable other things?

So what exactly does the law of identity mean if it does not equivocate to anything?

And why argue against the claim "LI does not equal LI" when you yourself say LI does not equal anything?

And the law of identity does not use equivocation....so what does "=" mean in "A=A" or "LI = LI"?

I have to be frank. Do you even have a slight clue about what you are talking about? Or are you just disconcerted as usual?

The law of identity = the law of identity. That is the law of identity. I did not say the law of identity "does not equal anything". A=A is not an equivocation. Do you not understand logic?

So identity requires equivocating if LI=LI.

Actually if A=A is not the law of identity, and LI=LI only is the Law, then the Law does not equivocate to anything outside of its own tautology. So basically LI=LI, as not A=A or anything else, is a pure tautology that does not scale as scale would require some degree of equivocation.

What is A=A...if it is not the Law of Identity?

So "=" is not equivocation in "A=A"?

So "=" does not equal "equals".

Why are you even arguing at this point. If "=" is not equivocation, by your own standards, then what exactly is this logic you are defending by point to vague authorties?

[Eodnhoj7]

The law of identity = the law of identity. That is the law of identity. I did not say the law of identity "does not equal anything". A=A is not an equivocation. Do you not understand logic?

So identity requires equivocating if LI=LI.

Actually if A=A is not the law of identity, and LI=LI only is the Law, then the Law does not equivocate to anything outside of its own tautology. So basically LI=LI, as not A=A or anything else, is a pure tautology that does not scale as scale would require some degree of equivocation.

What is A=A...if it is not the Law of Identity?

So "=" is not equivocation in "A=A"?

So "=" does not equal "equals".

Why are you even arguing at this point. If "=" is not equivocation, by your own standards, then what exactly is this logic you are defending by point to vague authorties?

So much for your logic. Just save face at this point.

[Gary Childress]

So identity requires equivocating if LI=LI.

Actually if A=A is not the law of identity, and LI=LI only is the Law, then the Law does not equivocate to anything outside of its own tautology. So basically LI=LI, as not A=A or anything else, is a pure tautology that does not scale as scale would require some degree of equivocation.

What is A=A...if it is not the Law of Identity?

So "=" is not equivocation in "A=A"?

So "=" does not equal "equals".

Why are you even arguing at this point. If "=" is not equivocation, by your own standards, then what exactly is this logic you are defending by point to vague authorties?

So much for your logic. Just save face at this point.

Does (=) (=/=) (=)? Can you tell me that without undermining your own argument that (=) (=/=) (=)?

Or, more importantly, do you actually believe it to be the case that (=) (=/=) (=)? If you don't believe that (=) (=) (=) then how are you going to say anything at all about (=). Does (Logic) (=) ("Multi-Dimensional Tautological Assertions") if (=) (=/=) (=)?

[Eodnhoj7]

So much for your logic. Just save face at this point.

Does (=) (=/=) (=)? Can you tell me that without undermining your own argument that (=) (=/=) (=)?

Or, more importantly, do you actually believe it to be the case that (=) (=/=) (=)? If you don't believe that (=) (=) (=) then how are you going to say anything at all about (=). Does (Logic) (=) ("Multi-Dimensional Tautological Assertions") if (=) (=/=) (=)?

Simple.

B is a different scale of A. B is composed of A and as such equals A in the respect of being composed of A.

B does not equal A in scale thus relative to the scale A=/=B

(A=A) = LI
(B=B) = LI
(A=B) <-> (LI = LI)

(A=A) =/= (-A=-A)
(B=B) = (-A=-A)
(A=A) =/= (B=B)
(A=A) = (LI = LI)
(B=B) = (LI = LI)
(LI=LI) =/= (LI=LI)
(=) =/= (=)



The Law of identity is both equal to and non equal to itself.
It is equal within a specific scale, unequal across relative scales.

[Gary Childress]

So much for your logic. Just save face at this point.

Does (=) (=/=) (=)? Can you tell me that without undermining your own argument that (=) (=/=) (=)?

Or, more importantly, do you actually believe it to be the case that (=) (=/=) (=)? If you don't believe that (=) (=) (=) then how are you going to say anything at all about (=). Does (Logic) (=) ("Multi-Dimensional Tautological Assertions") if (=) (=/=) (=)?

Simple.

B is a different scale of A. B is composed of A and as such equals A in the respect of being composed of A.

B does not equal A in scale thus relative to the scale A=/=B

(A=A) = LI
(B=B) = LI
(A=B) <-> (LI = LI)

(A=A) =/= (-A=-A)
(B=B) = (-A=-A)
(A=A) =/= (B=B)
(A=A) = (LI = LI)
(B=B) = (LI = LI)
(LI=LI) =/= (LI=LI)
(=) =/= (=)



The Law of identity is both equal to and non equal to itself.
It is equal within a specific scale, unequal across relative scales.

"Different scales"? Gibberish, not logic, my friend. I'm sorry to inform you that your argument is neither valid nor sound. If (=) =/= (=), then you cannot prove the very first statement that (A=A) = LI. If you think logic is broken, then you'd better find a way to fix your predicament if you want to argue anything logically. Until then, you may as well twiddle your thumbs.

[Gary Childress]

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a34996c-bcec ... c338b42893

[Eodnhoj7]

Does (=) (=/=) (=)? Can you tell me that without undermining your own argument that (=) (=/=) (=)?

Or, more importantly, do you actually believe it to be the case that (=) (=/=) (=)? If you don't believe that (=) (=) (=) then how are you going to say anything at all about (=). Does (Logic) (=) ("Multi-Dimensional Tautological Assertions") if (=) (=/=) (=)?

Simple.

B is a different scale of A. B is composed of A and as such equals A in the respect of being composed of A.

B does not equal A in scale thus relative to the scale A=/=B

(A=A) = LI
(B=B) = LI
(A=B) <-> (LI = LI)

(A=A) =/= (-A=-A)
(B=B) = (-A=-A)
(A=A) =/= (B=B)
(A=A) = (LI = LI)
(B=B) = (LI = LI)
(LI=LI) =/= (LI=LI)
(=) =/= (=)



The Law of identity is both equal to and non equal to itself.
It is equal within a specific scale, unequal across relative scales.

"Different scales"? Gibberish, not logic, my friend. I'm sorry to inform you that your argument is neither valid nor sound. If (=) =/= (=), then you cannot prove the very first statement that (A=A) = LI. If you think logic is broken, then you'd better find a way to fix your predicament if you want to argue anything logically. Until then, you may as well twiddle your thumbs.

A line segment within a line segment are but scales of a line segment. One line segment is equal to another, as a line segment, but different in scale.

You claim gibberish and yet you claimed LI is not A=A, you have no foundations by your own standards. The gibberish is not what is claimed by me, it is what you assert by your own standards as you have no coherent defintion but vague bandwagon "common sense".

[Gary Childress]

Simple.

B is a different scale of A. B is composed of A and as such equals A in the respect of being composed of A.

B does not equal A in scale thus relative to the scale A=/=B

(A=A) = LI
(B=B) = LI
(A=B) <-> (LI = LI)

(A=A) =/= (-A=-A)
(B=B) = (-A=-A)
(A=A) =/= (B=B)
(A=A) = (LI = LI)
(B=B) = (LI = LI)
(LI=LI) =/= (LI=LI)
(=) =/= (=)



The Law of identity is both equal to and non equal to itself.
It is equal within a specific scale, unequal across relative scales.

"Different scales"? Gibberish, not logic, my friend. I'm sorry to inform you that your argument is neither valid nor sound. If (=) =/= (=), then you cannot prove the very first statement that (A=A) = LI. If you think logic is broken, then you'd better find a way to fix your predicament if you want to argue anything logically. Until then, you may as well twiddle your thumbs.

A line segment within a line segment are but scales of a line segment. One line segment is equal to another, as a line segment, but different in scale.

You claim gibberish and yet you claimed LI is not A=A, you have no foundations by your own standards. The gibberish is not what is claimed by me, it is what you assert by your own standards as you have no coherent defintion but vague bandwagon "common sense".

You're using words that don't = themselves again to assert something. If (=) (=/=) (=), then nothing you say refers to itself. You may as well gurgle water instead of discussing logic. I've said before that the Li = Li. So I don't see how I have that problem. (=) = (=) is common sense. If you don't think it does, then there's something wrong with your common sense. So I'll ask again, does (=) =/= (=)? Let me know if you still believe that.