Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 8:35 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 3:27 pm The author of the thread does not really understand what The Law of Identity is.

It's not him. It's you.

Code: Select all

❯ irb
irb(main):001> Time.now == Time.now
=> false

Well, there you go again embarrassing yourself.

All you're doing here is you are reiterating what was said in the OP but in a way that is harder to understand. It's a pretty stupid thing to expect others to understand how Unix shell and Interactive Ruby work. This isn't a programming forum, it's a philosophy forum. Not everyone is a programmer. And even programmers themselves do not necessarily understand those tools. Not everyone is a Ruby programmer and not everyone uses Unix shell.

The point of contention is your UNDERSTANDING of what the Law of Identity is saying. So what you have to do is prove that your understanding is the correct one. Are you doing that? Of course not. You're merely trying to impress with basic programming skills while reiterating what was previously said and understood.

The Law of Identity isn't saying that things do not undergo change. "A = A" does not man "The state of A at every point in time t during its existence is the same". It is not saying that 46yr old John is the same as 45yr old John. The fallacy you're committing is a strawman fallacy. You're MISUDNERSTANDING what you're ARGUING AGAINST. But you won't let that sink in your head. You're way too stubborn.

"A = A" merely means that the portion of reality referenced by A is identical to the portion of reality referenced by A.

As an example, if A denotes the state of some apple at some point in time t, then what "A = A" means is that the state of that apple at that point in time t is identical to the state of that apple at that point in time t.

Another example. If A denotes the way some apple changed during some period of time, then what "A = A" means is that the kind of change that apple underwent during that period of time is the same as the kind of change that it underwent during that period of time.

It's trivially true.

Only morons argue against it.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 9:48 pm blah blah blah

"A = A" merely means that the portion of reality referenced by A is identical to the portion of reality referenced by A.

blah blah blah

It's trivially true.

blah blah blah

irb(main):001* def a
irb(main):002* Time.now
irb(main):003> end
=> :a
irb(main):004> a == a
=> false

Or in English.

Now is not identical to now.

He's writing code, instead of philosophical arguments, in order to more effectively hide the fact that he has no adequate response.

In this particular case ( before he completely rewrote his post ), he randomly decided to switch from Ruby to Python. No legitimate reason to do that other than to impress, distract and confuse. The same code can be written in Ruby.

And all his code is showing is that there is a wy to redefine the word "is" such that the statement "A is A" acquires a new meaning that renders it false.

It's a pretty stupid response. But in order to see how stupid it is, you need to understand his code.

His argument is basically this:

"A is A" is not true because you can redefine the word "is" in such a way so that the statement "A is A" acquires a new meaning that renders it false.

That would be an equivocation fallacy.

The code he originally wrote.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 9:58 pm

irb(main):001* def a
irb(main):002* Time.now
irb(main):003> end
=> :a
irb(main):004> a == a
=> false

Or in English.

Now is not identical to now.

Or in English.

Two different portions of reality that are called by the same name ( e.g. "now" ) are not necessarily the same.

Unfortunately for you, the Law of Identity is comparing one and the same portion of reality. It's not comparing two different portions of reality as you do. It's comparing previous now against previous now ( or current now against current now. ) It's not comparing previous now against current now.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:12 pm He's writing code, instead of philosophical arguments, in order to more effectively hide the fact that he has no adequate response.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 9:58 pm Or in English.

Now is not identical to now.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:12 pm In this particular case ( before he completely rewrote his post ), he randomly decided to switch from Ruby to Python.

It's called Science, you dumb ****.

The result is reproducible and programming language agnostic.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:12 pm "A is A" is not true because you can redefine the word "is" in such a way so that the statement "A is A" becomes false.

That would be an equivoction fallacy.

The word "is" is not being redefined you dumb cunt. It's truth-value is being redefined.

Therefore trivially demonstrating that A == A is... whatever you decide it to be.

True. False. 42. A chicken.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:21 pm Unfortunately for you, the Law of Identity is comparing one and the same portion of reality. It's not comparing two different portions of reality as you do. It's comparing previous now against previous now ( or current now against current now. ) It's not comparing previous now against current now.

Previous now? Current now?

Which now is now in the sense you insist identity is supposed to work?

When is Now = Now true?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:22 pm It's called Science, you dumb ****.

The result is reproducible and programming language agnostic.

It's called being a retard who refuses to speak in a way that everyone can understand so that he can impress, distract and confuse while concealing the fact that he has absolutely nothing of substance to add.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:22 pm The word "is" is not being redefined you dumb cunt. It's truth-value is being redefined.

And that's supposed to be a defense?

"Oh, I didn't kill John. I am innocent. I killed Peter."

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:35 pm And that's supposed to be a defense?

Defense? It's an attack, you dumb cunt.

Aimed directly at your claim that it's "trivially true".

Your've assigned it an arbitrary truth-value.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:25 pm When is Now = Now true?

When the portion of reality referenced by the word "now" on the left side of the equation is identical to the portion of reality referenced by the word "now" on the right side of the equation.

The statement is NECESSARILY true if the word "now" on the left side of the equation and the word "now" on the right side of the equation refer to the same exact portion of reality. ( That's what the Law of Identity is saying. )

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:32 pm It's called being a retard who refuses to speak in a way that everyone can understand so that he can impress, distract and confuse while concealing the fact that he has absolutely nothing of substance to add.

I even coloured it in for you.

(A=A) = False.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:37 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:35 pm And that's supposed to be a defense?

Defense? It's an attack, you dumb cunt.

Aimed directly at your claim that it's "trivially true".

Your've assigned it an arbitrary truth-value.

Dumb.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:38 pm When the portion of reality referenced by the word "now" on the left side of the equation is identical to the portion of reality referenced by the word "now" on the right side of the equation.

Which is when?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:38 pm The statement is NECESSARILY true if the word "now" on the left side of the equation and the word "now" on the right side of the equation refer to the same exact portion of reality. ( That's what the Law of Identity is saying. )

When does that happen?

When does time stop to wait for you so you can mention the same "now" twice?

Can you go ahead and demonstrate? Give an example when now is now.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:40 pm When does time stop to wait for you so you can mention the same "now" twice?

You're confusing ontology with epistemology.