Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Mar 07, 2025 1:37 pm**

mental constructs are not physical objects

-Imp

Posted: **Fri Mar 07, 2025 2:35 pm**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 1:31 pm Ohhh so portions of reality aren't themselves locations?

Not every portion of reality is a location. And not every portion of reality contains locations.

You are acting as if you're incapable of focusing on an apple and disregarding not merely its environment but also its location. Is that really so difficult for you to do? Are you really that mentally challenged?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 1:31 pm Let me save you ALL this elaborate mental masturbation! If portion A and portion B's locations are NOT identical then portion A is NOT identical to portion B.

No.

Portion A and portion B are identical if and only if they share all of their elements.

Locations may or may not be among their elements.

Posted: **Fri Mar 07, 2025 3:23 pm**

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 2:35 pm Not every portion of reality is a location. And not every portion of reality contains locations.

So where are these portions located then?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 2:35 pm You are acting as if you're incapable of focusing on an apple and disregarding not merely its environment but also its location. Is that really so difficult for you to do? Are you really that mentally challenged?

Yes. It's impossible for me to imagine a portion of reality that's not located anywhere.

I am sure this looks like some sort of "mental challenge" to a fucking idiot like you.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 2:35 pm Portion A and portion B are identical if and only if they share all of their elements.

There you go confusing identity and sameness.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 2:35 pm Locations may or may not be among their elements.

So portion A and portion B aren't located anywhere?

What a fucking idiot.

Posted: **Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:31 pm**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 3:23 pm So where are these portions located then?

They are located wherever they are located.

The fact that they are located somewhere does not mean that they contain their locations.

Why do you insist that it's impossible to ignore the location of an apple? One can ignore the locations of all other objects in the universe, but somehow, one cannot ignore the location of two apples?

There are 8 billion people in the world. You can ignore all of them and their locations. You can ignore yourself and your own location. But you can't ignore the locations of the two apples that you're comparing?

It's easy. Pick an apple. Sit next to it. Disregard everything else. Forget about the environment, the world, the forum. Forget about yourself. Finally, forget about the apple's location. Focus only on the collection of atoms that constitute it and their relative positions in space. Why is that so difficult for you?

And no, the word "identical" does not mean "has the same identity". That's your own definition which happens to be completely irrelevant. The word "identical" simply means "same". Two portions of reality are identical if and only if they have all of their elements in common.

Understand that ignoring reality is not the same as falsifying reality. To falsify reality is to incorrectly map it. Ignoring it is simply not mapping it. As such, ignoring the location of an apple is not the same as thinking that the apple has no location.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 3:23 pm Yes. It's impossible for me to imagine a portion of reality that's not located anywhere.

I am sure this looks like some sort of "mental challenge" to a fucking idiot like you.

It's cute how you act as if ignoring location is the same as thinking that it does not exist.

I am accusing you of the inability to do the former, bunny. Get a grip. And yes, it's EXTREMELY difficult for you to grasp this simple fact.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 2:35 pm Portion A and portion B are identical if and only if they share all of their elements.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 3:23 pm There you go confusing identity and sameness.

When are you going to learn that speaking in English rather than Skeppie McDickie's own retarded version of English is not the same as confusing identity and sameness?

"Identical" means "same". Get over it. Google it. Ask Chat GPT. Ask anyone on this forum. Ask anyone in the universe.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 3:23 pm So portion A and portion B aren't located anywhere?

That's a conclusion that you draw from your own idiotic way of thinking which you refuse to expose ( which is one of the reasons you never learn. )

If a selected segment of reality contaiins no locations, it does not follow that it's located nowhere.

If someone is ignoring locations, it does not mean that locations do not exist nor that he thinks that they don't.

GROW THE FUCK UP.

Posted: **Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:44 pm**

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2024 11:10 am Assuming there is some Object in existence, it could be anything:

Any and every Object in existence cannot stay in the same place and time, because time changes everything, even and especially below the Nano-level. This means that every nano-nano-nano-infinite miniscule fraction-second that passes, a change has occurred.

Because these changes occur, an Object can never be identical to "itself".

The only way an Object could possibly be "identical to itself", or have any so-called "Identity", is for the human brain to Abstract one, as an Ideal-permanent-state, that Never Changes.

Because this is a false-reality, imposed upon Existence by the human brain, the "Law of Identity" is only a purely subjective phenomenon, that persists to help the human mind cope with an ever Changing Universe. The human brain 'Synthesizes' Existence and Reality, to Subjective, Temporary, Opinion-Perspective-Based Understanding, in order to Cope with this ever Changing Universe.

Meanwhile, the state of Existence is perpetual change (ie. Chaos). The Object changes into a new iteration, an infinite times per second.

Therefore, there is no actual, real, "Identical Object" in Existence. Because there is no place (or TIME) in Existence that Change/Chaos does not take place. There is no state of Permanence. There is no Identity to base any or all Human Knowledge upon. It is, forever, sand beneath your feet. There is no Solidity in Existence. There is no Unchange.

There is no Identity.

Wizard22,

Identity is a highly functional illusion in a temporal time frame. Identity for the individual is experience of its environmental context. The organism's constitution comes into the world without an identity, it acquires one through its ongoing experience and reactions to said environment. Its feeling and thoughts about this process are said to be its identity. There is only a constitution that is conditioned by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Where is that from? It's a dreamy, moving not quite thing, only illusion is the grasp of the ring. You might say that we live in a dream world. Apparent reality is an emergent quality, of the energies surrounding us and the way they alter our biology giving us experience, not of what is out there, but how what is out there affects us. Ultimate reality is a place of no things, or unmanifested energies.

Posted: **Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:52 pm**

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:31 pm They are located wherever they are located.

The fact that they are located somewhere does not mean that they contain their locations.

Any given portion of reality is identified by its location, numbskull.

Is it cold&windy at this part of reality the location of which I am not going to tell you about?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:31 pm Why do you insist that it's impossible to ignore the location of an apple?

Where is this apple you are speaking about? Is it located in your imagination; or somewhere else?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:31 pm One can ignore the locations of all other objects in the universe, but somehow, one cannot ignore the location of two apples?

Isn't is so peculiar that you keep locating things (like apples) but you have no clue where you've located them?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:31 pm There are 8 billion people in the world. You can ignore all of them and their locations. You can ignore yourself and your own location. But you can't ignore the locations of the two apples that you're comparing?

I can no more ignore the location than you can. Seeming as you've made sure there's 2 of them. They seem like they are at least spatially separated.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:31 pm It's easy. Pick an apple. Sit next to it. Disregard everything else. Forget about the environment, the world, the forum. Forget about yourself. Finally, forget about the apple's location. Focus only on the collection of atoms that constitute it and their relative positions in space. Why is that so difficult for you?

Ok. And?

I am still waiting for you to add the apple to itself. Or subtract it from itself. Or multiply it by itself. Or divide it by itself.

You know. Binary operations...

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:31 pm And no, the word "identical" does not mean "has the same identity".

I know that, wanker. "Identical" means "has identical identity".

You know, because sameness and identical are not identical.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:31 pm The word "identical" simply means "same".

Not possible, since same and identical are not identical.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:31 pm Two portions of reality are identical if and only if they have all of their elements in common.

Two of anything are never identical. That's why there's two of them.

Identity implies uniqueness. Catch up.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:31 pm Understand that ignoring reality is not the same as falsifying reality.

So why do you keep ignoring the reality of what identity is?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:31 pm It's cute how you act as if ignoring location is the same as thinking that it does not exist.

You act as if the entire universe is located in your head and available to your imagination.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:31 pm When are you going to learn that speaking in English rather than Skeppie McDickie's own retarded version of English is not the same as confusing identity and sameness?

What does the language we speak have to do with your misconception of identity?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:31 pm "Identical" means "same". Get over it. Google it. Ask Chat GPT. Ask anyone on this forum. Ask anyone in the universe.

You've outsourced your ability to think to Goodle, ChatGPT and other people?

It shows.

Posted: **Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:59 pm**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 1:31 pm So when you have sum(x,x) are both of those symbols pointing at an identical location; or at two different locations?

Using one and the same symbol in two different ways is not equivocation. That's merely . . . using one and the same symbol in two different ways. That sort of thing is potentially misleading but not necessarily. Equivocation is something else. Again, learn English language.

In the case of "sum( x, x )", both x's refer to the same variable. They are NOT two different variables with the same name.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 1:31 pm But you need TWO "1"s for that. You have only one.

And yet I don't. I have exactly one variable. It's called "x". And I have no problem using it two times in a function call. No error is thrown when I call "sum( x, x )". How is that possible, Skeppie?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 1:31 pm What? So if I have 1 apple (const x = 1 apple).
And I add that apple to itself I will get two apples?

I gave you computer code that you love so much. What did you do? You ignored it and went on to repeat your bullshit.

You're a master of stubbornness and persistence. That much I can admit. But that's not the same as being the master of thinking. And it's not even something to be proud of. Stubbornness limits your learning potential. It makes you dumb and uncooperative. It makes you a loser.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 1:31 pm How are you applying a binary function to a singular apple, you fucking idiot?!?

I am not applying a binary function to a singular apple. That's what you're trying to do. And the reason you're trying to it is because you're a retard. Only a retard would attempt such a thing.

Consider this. Hitler is dead. But you can still compare his sex to that of Stalin. Stalin is dead too. How is it possible for you to compare two dead people? Shouldn't they be alive in order to do that? Shouldn't you be looking at their genital areas while you're doing it? Shouldn't you be touching them down there, just to make sure that things are as they appear to your eyes? Maybe even smell them or taste them? Take them in your mouth? See if they can fill you up?

You can compare 2 dead people by constructing a map of each based on what information you have about them. Then you simply compare the 2 maps. Of course, that wouldn't be a good comparison if the two maps aren't accurate. But you get the point. ( I know, you don't get the point. )

The same goes for comparing an apple to itself. You construct a map of it -- which you do by the very act of observation -- and then you create a copy of that map in your head and do a check. That's a binary function applied to 2 different arguments each one of which describes the same thing in the same way.

You are trying too hard to be smart. And he who tries too hard to be one thing often ends up being the opposite of it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 1:31 pm No it doesn't.

And how exactly do you know that?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 1:31 pm What does speaking English have to do with being able to think?

It has to do with being able to understand what others are saying and being able to be understood by others.

But it also has to do with thinking.

Believe it or not, all thinking operates on symbols. Beside misunderstanding others, you can also misunderstand yourself. Thinking is a process of different parts of your brain communicating with each other using both intra- and interpersonal languages.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 1:31 pm Linguistic skills are not identical to thinking skills.

Is this news to you?

Yet, you have no tihnking skills whatsoever.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 1:31 pm A = A is equality, not identity.

And what you clumsily call "identity" is actually "equality in identity". In other words, it is a type of equality. Equality is a far more general term. And the Law of Identity, despite its name, has to do with self-equality in general, not merely self-equality in identity.

Posted: **Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:20 pm**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:52 pm Any given portion of reality is identified by its location, numbskull.

And? Your point is? Your point is that you have no point? But you want to hide that in an effort to preserve the imaginary idea of yourself that you've built over the years?

Again, let me repeat myself, since being a dullard that you are, nothing pleases you more than repetition.

The fact that any given portion of reality is identified by its location does not mean that every portion of reality contains its location.

You're choosing what you're going to focus on and what you're going to ignore. Absolutely NOTHING forces you to focus on locations ( other than, perhaps, your rigid, unsophisticated, mind. ) You can disregard them all you want.

But you can't do that due to reasons unknown to us. You don't want to share them with us. You hide your reasoning process both from yourself and from us. You thereby remain unaffected by anything anyone has to say about your stupid claims.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:52 pm Where is this apple you are speaking about? Is it located in your imagination; or somewhere else?

It's on your table. So no, it's not in anyone's imagination. It's a real apple.

What are you trying to say? That you can't ignore the location of a real apple? Is that what you're trying to say? That you're mentally rigid?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:52 pm Isn't is so peculiar that you keep locating things (like apples) but you have no clue where you've located them?

Who says I have no clue where I've located them? Why are you hallucinating?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:52 pm Two of anything are never identical. That's why there's two of them.

Your mind has been incontrovertibly poisoned by rubbish thinkers -- or simply thinkers of the past who made a number of mistakes they didn't have a chance to correct.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:52 pm Identity implies uniqueness. Catch up.

"Identical" means "same". Catch up.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:52 pm You've outsourced your ability to think to Goodle, ChatGPT and other people?

It shows.

And yet, your thinking is far more formulaic.

Posted: **Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:35 pm**

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:59 pm Using one and the same symbol in two different ways is not equivocation. That's merely . . . using one and the same symbol in two different ways. That sort of thing is potentially misleading but not necessarily. Equivocation is something else. Again, learn English language.

Your perpetual misconception has nothing to do with the language you speak.

Your problem isn't that you are speaking wrong. Your problem is that you are thinking wrong.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:59 pm In the case of "sum( x, x )", both x's refer to the same variable. They are NOT two different variables with the same name.

Soooo. You are adding something to itself and you think that's a valid operation.

What do you get when you sum yourself with yourself?

Idiot.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:59 pm And yet I don't. I have exactly one variable. It's called "x". And I have no problem using it two times in a function call.

You have no problem using ONE apple TWO TIMES when adding an apple to itself?!?!?

Idiot.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:59 pm No error is thrown when I call "sum( x, x )". How is that possible, Skeppie?

Because your language has no concept of resource-tracking, Dorky.

If fails to capture the essential aspect of an exhaustible resource. Your programming language doesn't treat numeric values as something which can only be used once.

As far as your conceptual framework is concerned you can add something to itself an infinite number of times with no concerns for the fact that you can't add an apple to itself to get more apples.

That's what happens when you confuse symbols with reality.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:59 pm I gave you computer code that you love so much. What did you do? You ignored it and went on to repeat your bullshit.

You used the wrong programming language. Try using a programming language which allows you to model concepts like single-use resources.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:59 pm Only a retard would attempt such a thing.

OK, retard. You are adding something to itself to get 2 of them.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:59 pm It has to do with being able to understand what others are saying and being able to be understood by others.

I understand exactly what you are saying. All of your words proceed from idiotic thoughts.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:59 pm Yet, you have no tihnking skills whatsoever.

Says the guy who thinks adding a thing to itself gives you two things.

Posted: **Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:49 pm**

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:59 pm And yet I don't. I have exactly one variable. It's called "x". And I have no problem using it two times in a function call. No error is thrown when I call "sum( x, x )". How is that possible, Skeppie?

Here you go, cupcake. A Rust implementation of a single-use variable.

These are called Linear types

x = 5.
sum(x,x) fails.

Code: Select all

struct SingleUseInt(i32);

// No Copy or Clone implementations for SingleUseInt
fn sum(a: SingleUseInt, b: SingleUseInt) -> i32 {
    a.0 + b.0 // Consumes both a and b
}

fn main() {
    let x = SingleUseInt(5);
    let result = sum(x, x); 
}

Code: Select all

 
 error[E0382]: use of moved value: `x`
 --> src/main.rs:9:25
  |
8 |     let x = SingleUseInt(5);
  |         - move occurs because `x` has type `SingleUseInt`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
9 |     let result = sum(x, x); 
  |                      -  ^ value used here after move

x=5
y=5
sum(x,y) works.

Code: Select all

struct SingleUseInt(i32);
// No Copy or Clone implementations for SingleUseInt
fn sum(a: SingleUseInt, b: SingleUseInt) -> i32 {
    a.0 + b.0 // Consumes both a and b
}

fn main() {
    let x = SingleUseInt(5);
    let y = SingleUseInt(5);
    let result = sum(x, y); 
}

Posted: **Sat Mar 08, 2025 3:02 am**

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2024 11:10 am Assuming there is some Object in existence, it could be anything:

Any and every Object in existence cannot stay in the same place and time, because time changes everything, even and especially below the Nano-level. This means that every nano-nano-nano-infinite miniscule fraction-second that passes, a change has occurred.

Because these changes occur, an Object can never be identical to "itself".

The only way an Object could possibly be "identical to itself", or have any so-called "Identity", is for the human brain to Abstract one, as an Ideal-permanent-state, that Never Changes.

Because this is a false-reality, imposed upon Existence by the human brain, the "Law of Identity" is only a purely subjective phenomenon, that persists to help the human mind cope with an ever Changing Universe. The human brain 'Synthesizes' Existence and Reality, to Subjective, Temporary, Opinion-Perspective-Based Understanding, in order to Cope with this ever Changing Universe.

Meanwhile, the state of Existence is perpetual change (ie. Chaos). The Object changes into a new iteration, an infinite times per second.

Therefore, there is no actual, real, "Identical Object" in Existence. Because there is no place (or TIME) in Existence that Change/Chaos does not take place. There is no state of Permanence. There is no Identity to base any or all Human Knowledge upon. It is, forever, sand beneath your feet. There is no Solidity in Existence. There is no Unchange.

There is no Identity.

Talk about illiteracy, so you are saying, that a noun refutes a verb? really? Ever read Charmides by Plato, it was about the Law of Identity, and it concludes with Relation to self is inadmissible.
Now, binary recursion affords us exactly four categories of Grammar called a Grammar Matrix. Each member has an historically established name: Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. Something like 5 - 0 = 5. If A - n = A, then n = 0.

So, show everyone that you can do the same line of reasoning in at least one other grammar beside common grammar.

Duh!

Posted: **Sat Mar 08, 2025 4:33 am**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:35 pm Your perpetual misconception has nothing to do with the language you speak.

Your problem isn't that you are speaking wrong. Your problem is that you are thinking wrong.

And yet, you claim that equivocation is not a logical fallacy but merely ан act of using one and the same word in two different ways.

Posted: **Sat Mar 08, 2025 6:57 am**

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 4:33 am And yet, you claim that equivocation is not a logical fallacy but merely ан act of using one and the same word in two different ways.

Yes and no. There's no mutual exclusion there. What's your point?

Posted: **Sat Mar 08, 2025 7:03 am**

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 3:02 am Now, binary recursion affords us exactly four categories of Grammar called a Grammar Matrix. Each member has an historically established name: Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. Something like 5 - 0 = 5. If A - n = A, then n = 0.

So, show everyone that you can do the same line of reasoning in at least one other grammar beside common grammar.

Duh!

Why not just regular recursion; or co-recursion? You can have as many categories as you want or need. None,1, 2 or infinitely many.

Your "Grammar Matrix" is missing quite a few disciplines.

Posted: **Sat Mar 08, 2025 7:28 am**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 7:03 am
Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 3:02 am Now, binary recursion affords us exactly four categories of Grammar called a Grammar Matrix. Each member has an historically established name: Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. Something like 5 - 0 = 5. If A - n = A, then n = 0.

So, show everyone that you can do the same line of reasoning in at least one other grammar beside common grammar.

Duh!
Why not just regular recursion; or co-recursion? You can have as many categories as you want or need. None,1, 2 or infinitely many.

Your "Grammar Matrix" is missing quite a few disciplines.

You do not read much, study much, or think much do you? By biological fact, as Plato noted, what can you actually name? Here is another hint, how many parts of speech does even the definition of a thing tell you exists? How many parts of speech does a computer use to process all information/

Good god man, get a thought!

When it comes to information processing, you might want practice your arguments on the own computer. See if it will change its behavior.

Philosophy Now Forum

The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

Re: The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change