Page 4 of 5
Re: P = -P
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:59 am
by Terrapin Station
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:16 am
It is not a yes or no question given "maybe" is the third option.
Right. So you're not sure what you're doing when performing addition?
Re: P = -P
Posted: Mon May 03, 2021 8:24 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:16 am
It is not a yes or no question given "maybe" is the third option.
Right. So you're not sure what you're doing when performing addition?
I am adding one phenomenon
and another. Tell me how one phenomenon
and itself does not show multiple phenomena?
Re: P = -P
Posted: Mon May 03, 2021 8:46 pm
by Terrapin Station
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 8:24 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:16 am
It is not a yes or no question given "maybe" is the third option.
Right. So you're not sure what you're doing when performing addition?
I am adding one phenomenon
and another. Tell me how one phenomenon
and itself does not show multiple phenomena?
So you're not adding a "phenomenon" to itself?
Re: P = -P
Posted: Mon May 03, 2021 8:51 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 8:46 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 8:24 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:59 am
Right. So you're not sure what you're doing when performing addition?
I am adding one phenomenon
and another. Tell me how one phenomenon
and itself does not show multiple phenomena?
So you're not adding a "phenomenon" to itself?
Adding one phenomenon to itself shows multiple distinct phenomena thus to say adding it to itself is a contradiction.
Re: P = -P
Posted: Mon May 03, 2021 9:40 pm
by Terrapin Station
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 8:51 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 8:46 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 8:24 pm
I am adding one phenomenon
and another. Tell me how one phenomenon
and itself does not show multiple phenomena?
So you're not adding a "phenomenon" to itself?
Adding one phenomenon to itself shows multiple distinct phenomena thus to say adding it to itself is a contradiction.
So when you're doing addition, you're not "adding a phenomenon to itself."
Re: P = -P
Posted: Mon May 03, 2021 10:55 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 9:40 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 8:51 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 8:46 pm
So you're not adding a "phenomenon" to itself?
Adding one phenomenon to itself shows multiple distinct phenomena thus to say adding it to itself is a contradiction.
So when you're doing addition, you're not "adding a phenomenon to itself."
Yet a thing
and itself is the same as addition.
Re: P = -P
Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 9:31 am
by Terrapin Station
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:55 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 9:40 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 8:51 pm
Adding one phenomenon to itself shows multiple distinct phenomena thus to say adding it to itself is a contradiction.
So when you're doing addition, you're not "adding a phenomenon to itself."
Yet a thing
and itself is the same as addition.
This is simply you not understanding normal language usage.
Re: P = -P
Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 10:05 am
by Skepdick
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:31 am
This is simply you not understanding normal language usage.
This is simply you appealing to normative semantics. There's no such thing.
What's the "normal language use" of "understand"? How does "understanding" obtain?
Re: P = -P
Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 6:38 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:55 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 9:40 pm
So when you're doing addition, you're not "adding a phenomenon to itself."
Yet a thing
and itself is the same as addition.
This is simply you not understanding normal language usage.
"And" is addition...there is nothing else to understand.
Re: P = -P
Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 11:21 pm
by Terrapin Station
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 6:38 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:55 pm
Yet a thing
and itself is the same as addition.
This is simply you not understanding normal language usage.
"And" is addition...there is nothing else to understand.
When we talk about "a thing 'and itself'" we're not talking about addition. So if that's the way you're reading it, you're not understanding normal language usage.
Re: P = -P
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 12:40 am
by Eodnhoj7
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 11:21 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 6:38 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:31 am
This is simply you not understanding normal language usage.
"And" is addition...there is nothing else to understand.
When we talk about "a thing 'and itself'" we're not talking about addition. So if that's the way you're reading it, you're not understanding normal language usage.
False, you are failing to look deeper into the language. Something "and" something is addition.
Re: P = -P
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 12:18 pm
by Terrapin Station
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:40 am
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 11:21 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 6:38 pm
"And" is addition...there is nothing else to understand.
When we talk about "a thing 'and itself'" we're not talking about addition. So if that's the way you're reading it, you're not understanding normal language usage.
False, you are failing to look deeper into the language. Something "and" something is addition.
lol--this solely hinges on what people have in mind when they say something.
Re: P = -P
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 6:34 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:18 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:40 am
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 11:21 pm
When we talk about "a thing 'and itself'" we're not talking about addition. So if that's the way you're reading it, you're not understanding normal language usage.
False, you are failing to look deeper into the language. Something "and" something is addition.
lol--this solely hinges on what people have in mind when they say something.
So identity is subject to interpretation then?
Re: P = -P
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 7:31 pm
by Terrapin Station
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 6:34 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:18 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:40 am
False, you are failing to look deeper into the language. Something "and" something is addition.
lol--this solely hinges on what people have in mind when they say something.
So identity is subject to interpretation then?
I see you lost the ability to follow the conversation again.
Re: P = -P
Posted: Tue May 11, 2021 1:22 am
by Eodnhoj7
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 7:31 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 6:34 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:18 pm
lol--this solely hinges on what people have in mind when they say something.
So identity is subject to interpretation then?
I see you lost the ability to follow the conversation again.
False you said: "lol--this solely
hinges on what people have in mind when they say something."
So I asked you: "So identity is subject to interpretation then?"