My view is that a is not a and is a.

[TheVisionofEr]

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:38 pm
In discussion or understanding with words we talk about what is the same. However nothing remians the same except in a limited way.
You may find this paper on Logic interesting.

Locus solum: From the rules of logic to the logic of rules

Locus Solum means something like "Only the location matters"

Sounds like a math of relations. However, in this case what is implied is the identity of the relationship. "Next to" in a topology is assumed to be genuinely stable outside time or history. Rather than the thing or number that is "next to" some other.

[commonsense]

Note Buddhism's Two-Truths Theory;

• A is A
  A is not-A

There is no contradiction because both can be at the same time, but not in the same sense/perspective.

• Example;
  Water is Water - common sense but at the same time,
  Water is not-Water but H2O - scientific sense.

Horse hockey!

Water and H2O are names for one-and-the-same thing.

[Sculptor]

Yes, but there is only 1 clone, 1 oak leaf, 1 apple or 1 A. The other was or will be, at a different point in space/time like then & there instead of here & now.

Er, no.
You can call anything by any name. The point is that of all the clones, or oak leaves, or apples,(of which there are many), none is exactly the same as any other. So whilst, conceptually a=a, there is in fact no example where this is true in reality.

The law of identity works pretty well in reality, does it not?

It's not a physical law. It is not am empirical fact. It's just logic.

[commonsense]

Stating the obvious, there are essentially two views on the issue of whether a can be not a. That a can be a is accepted, I believe, by both sides. That no two things can be identical is also accepted by both viewpoints, I’d wager.

Where a = a, one view holds that these are two different a’s, and therefore a can be something different from itself, I.e. not a. If the second a is different from the first, a can exist as not a.

On the other hand, if the second a is identical to the first, there of course cannot be two a’s since no two things are identical.

So it stands to reason that if it could be determined whether the second a is identical or not to the first a, it could be shown whether a can or cannot be not a.

There are, then, two cases. Either a can be a or a can be not a. As mentioned above, that a can be a is accepted on both sides of the issue.

By the Law of the Excluded Middle, there can only be one out of two possibilities. The one that is accepted from both essential viewpoints is that a = a. By LEM—and by the Law of Identity as well—a cannot also be not a.

[henry quirk]

Stating the obvious, there are essentially two views on the issue of whether a can be not a. That a can be a is accepted, I believe, by both sides. That no two things can be identical is also accepted by both viewpoints, I’d wager.

Where a = a, one view holds that these are two different a’s, and therefore a can be something different from itself, I.e. not a. If the second a is different from the first, a can exist as not a.

On the other hand, if the second a is identical to the first, there of course cannot be two a’s since no two things are identical.

So it stands to reason that if it could be determined whether the second a is identical or not to the first a, it could be shown whether a can or cannot be not a.

There are, then, two cases. Either a can be a or a can be not a. As mentioned above, that a can be a is accepted on both sides of the issue.

By the Law of the Excluded Middle, there can only be one out of two possibilities. The one that is accepted from both essential viewpoints is that a = a. By LEM—and by the Law of Identity as well—a cannot also be not a.

It's just Robot Overlord, er, I mean, common sense...

The apple I hold in my right hand is the apple I hold in my right hand, and is no other: A is A.

The apple I hold in my right is not the apple that I simultaneously hold in my left hand: A is not B.

Even if left hand apple and right hand apple are identical right down to the atomic level, the two apples are still two discrete apples, each existing independent of the other: RA is not LA, or, A is not B.

[commonsense]

Er, no.
You can call anything by any name. The point is that of all the clones, or oak leaves, or apples,(of which there are many), none is exactly the same as any other. So whilst, conceptually a=a, there is in fact no example where this is true in reality.

The law of identity works pretty well in reality, does it not?

It's not a physical law. It is not am empirical fact. It's just logic.

OK, not a physical law and therefore does not take effect in the physical world, you might say.

But experiences take place in the physical world, if there is any such thing as a physical world. And if these experiences make sense in the real world, then they conform to logic, for that is how we decide if something makes sense or not in the physical world.

[commonsense]

All things are unique in some way. No two oak leaves are the same. Since things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another, it would be impossible to say there are two oak leaves since 1+1=2, that would be a lie since each leaf is different. You could only say that there is a leaf and there is another leaf.

If, as commonly is the case, an oak leaf is defined as a leaf from an oak tree, then two non-identical oak leaves are two objects that fulfill the definition of an oak leaf. In other words, two unique oak leaves are still two oak leaves. One oak leaf & another oak leaf are two oak leaves by common definition. One leaf from an oak tree & one leaf from a maple tree are likewise two leaves though different.

Two identical oak leaves is a special case. One oak leaf and another one exactly the same are two identical oak leaves (hypothetically). They are also two oak leaves in the general sense.

A definition is an imposition upon reality. A definition is an abstraction of reality.
All things are unique. Each thing exists in its own temporal and spacial reality.
a is not equal to a in reality, only in abstract.

Logically or in the abstract, a is not equal to not a. Because the abstract is derived from reality, that a is not equal to not a is derived from reality as well.

Likewise, in the abstract a is equal to a, and again by way of the source of abstract, a is equal to a in reality as well.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You truly don't see do you, just how truly short sighed you are.

Hand waving as usual.
Give me your argument and justifications to your above claims, else it would be better for you to shut up.

Been there, done that...I'm not going to waste my time again with someone as yourself that is incapable of rational reasoning. Your only argument falls apart when dealing with me - sure - when up against standard theist beliefs you have a leg to stand on, but against me you are left standing on your own scrotum.

Chickening as usual when ran out of philosophically based arguments.
Note this is a philosophy forum and the only 'currency' to be traded is valid sound arguments, not babbling like your above.

[attofishpi]

Hand waving as usual.
Give me your argument and justifications to your above claims, else it would be better for you to shut up.

Been there, done that...I'm not going to waste my time again with someone as yourself that is incapable of rational reasoning. Your only argument falls apart when dealing with me - sure - when up against standard theist beliefs you have a leg to stand on, but against me you are left standing on your own scrotum.

Chickening as usual when ran out of philosophically based arguments.
Note this is a philosophy forum and the only 'currency' to be traded is valid sound arguments, not babbling like your above.

Chickening? Ooo one needs to be so brave to post on a bloody forum FFS.

The problem you have is that you don't have a valid sound argument and I really don't want to waste my time again going around and around with your circular spin on your scrotum.

[Skepdick]

Two symbols for the same apple.

In effect you are claiming that the symbols lack their own identity.

Ontologically, this is faulty.

A is itself.

A = A doesn't tell you anything new.

[Skepdick]

What we have is 2 symbols pointing to the same concept of what we ostensively call an apple. 1 apple and 2 references, but only 1 apple.

If you are doing ontology, you don't need two symbols to point to the same thing. You need only one.

The point of conversation/debate is to converge to a single symbol. Otherwise we are still arguing over nomenclature, not substance.

My symbol or your symbol.

[Sculptor]

The law of identity works pretty well in reality, does it not?

It's not a physical law. It is not am empirical fact. It's just logic.

OK, not a physical law and therefore does not take effect in the physical world, you might say.

But experiences take place in the physical world, if there is any such thing as a physical world. And if these experiences make sense in the real world, then they conform to logic,

False conclusion.

... for that is how we decide if something makes sense or not in the physical world.

In the vast majority of cases humans and other living things get on perfectly well without using, or even having any knowledge of an abstract notion like the "law of identity".
The law of identity is not a physical law, and has no part in the physical world.

[commonsense]

... for that is how we decide if something makes sense or not in the physical world.

In the vast majority of cases humans and other living things get on perfectly well without using, or even having any knowledge of an abstract notion like the "law of identity".
The law of identity is not a physical law, and has no part in the physical world.

You’re beginning to convince me. But how can you say that ordinary people don’t apply the Law of Identity intuitively?

[Skepdick]

You’re beginning to convince me. But how can you say that ordinary people don’t apply the Law of Identity intuitively?

It's a "law" of conversational courtesy, and a "law" of ontology. beyond that - it's kinda meaningless.

If you use the same word to mean two different things - you are causing ambiguity.
If you use two different words to mean the same thing - you are causing uncertainty.

They are suggestions for polite discourse as way of ensuring clarity.

Differentiate your terms.
Amalgamate your terms.

[Impenitent]

Note Buddhism's Two-Truths Theory;

• A is A
  A is not-A

There is no contradiction because both can be at the same time, but not in the same sense/perspective.

• Example;
  Water is Water - common sense but at the same time,
  Water is not-Water but H2O - scientific sense.

Horse hockey!

Water and H2O are names for one-and-the-same thing.

water polo without horses maybe, but what kind of respectable farrier would make horse shoes with skating blades?

8 foot long hockey sticks even...

barrel racing is hard enough

-Imp