Philosophy Now Forum

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"

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:02 am 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.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:42 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:59 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:35 pm

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?

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:15 pm 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.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:54 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:42 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:59 pm
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.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:45 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:12 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:56 pm

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.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:31 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:32 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:11 pm

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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 4:51 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:31 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:32 am
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.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:23 pm Two symbols for the same apple.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:20 pm 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.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:53 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:54 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:42 pm

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.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:22 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:53 am
... 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 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:06 pm You’re beginning to convince me. But how can you say that ordinary people don’t apply the Law of Identity intuitively?

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:29 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:02 am 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.