Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:31 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:58 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:50 am
What you wrote has multiple ways of perceiving it.

But that's irrelevant. The issue is whether we can refer to the same thing with different words/with the same word on multiple occasions.

The same thing through multiple words shows both the same and different thing being observed, ie grades of being. Each P, as two instances, necessitates multiple things being observed as multiple grades. P is subject to gradation when observed in multiples.

You're never going to understand this stuff. Not at this rate anyway.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:35 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:31 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:58 am

But that's irrelevant. The issue is whether we can refer to the same thing with different words/with the same word on multiple occasions.

The same thing through multiple words shows both the same and different thing being observed, ie grades of being. Each P, as two instances, necessitates multiple things being observed as multiple grades. P is subject to gradation when observed in multiples.

You're never going to understand this stuff. Not at this rate anyway.

I personally don't think you fully understand what you are saying.

How can 1 instance equal itself without breaking down to two instances? Equality results in a dualism.

There is nothing to understand, P=P observes two instances of a thing being observed. The same thing occurs through multiple states thus occurs in grades. "The rose is red" equals "The rose is red" shows the rose as existing in time/space x in one example and time/space y in another example. The one instance occurs through gradation.

The same thing under the same time/space cannot equal itself as it observes two instances of the same thing occuring.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:27 pm How can 1 instance equal itself without breaking down to two instances

This is just gibberish.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:57 pm This is just gibberish.

It's only gibberish if you don't understand Arity and Singletons.

The equality operator takes two arguments. Left-hand side and right-hand side. It's a binary operator. =(X,Y)

It follows that A = A is false. They are different entities. At least in time.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:57 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:27 pm How can 1 instance equal itself without breaking down to two instances

This is just gibberish.

Tell me how one equals itself without resulting in multiple ones.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:34 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:57 pm This is just gibberish.

It's only gibberish if you don't understand Arity and Singletons.

The equality operator takes two arguments. Left-hand side and right-hand side. It's a binary operator. =(X,Y)

It follows that A = A is false. They are different entities. At least in time.

anea.png

True.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:07 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:57 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:27 pm How can 1 instance equal itself without breaking down to two instances

This is just gibberish.

Tell me how one equals itself without resulting in multiple ones.

Any given particular is identical to itself--or you could say that it "equals" itself. That would just be another way of saying that it's identical to itself in that case. This is numeric identity. "Multiple xs" is numeric nonidentity. We'd no longer be talking about a single particular. Numeric identity isn't the same thing as numeric nonidentity, obviously.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:30 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:07 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:57 pm
This is just gibberish.

Tell me how one equals itself without resulting in multiple ones.

Any given particular is identical to itself--or you could say that it "equals" itself. That would just be another way of saying that it's identical to itself in that case. This is numeric identity. "Multiple xs" is numeric nonidentity. We'd no longer be talking about a single particular. Numeric identity isn't the same thing as numeric nonidentity, obviously.

This did not tell me how one equals itself without resulting in multiple ones. Tell me how 1=1 does not contain (1,1) in the statement.

Being identical to itself necessitates multiple identities to equivocate. Bob cannot equal Bob unless there are multiple Bob's in time and space. Equivocation requires a dualism, this dualism requires multiple phenomenon.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:30 pm Any given particular is identical to itself--or you could say that it "equals" itself.

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:46 pm This did not tell me how one equals itself without resulting in multiple ones. Tell me how 1=1 does not contain (1,1) in the statement.

You're confusing signifiers and signifieds. References and referents.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:00 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:46 pm This did not tell me how one equals itself without resulting in multiple ones. Tell me how 1=1 does not contain (1,1) in the statement.

You're confusing signifiers and signifieds. References and referents.

One referring to itself makes it simultaneously that which references and that which is referred too.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:00 pm You're confusing signifiers and signifieds. References and referents.

He really isn't. You are prescribing a logic with the identity axiom.

In physics identity is meaningless. There's only indistinguishability of signifieds/referents.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/De ... 4923d9.pdf

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:02 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:00 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:46 pm This did not tell me how one equals itself without resulting in multiple ones. Tell me how 1=1 does not contain (1,1) in the statement.

You're confusing signifiers and signifieds. References and referents.

One referring to itself makes it simultaneously that which references and that which is referred too.

. . . and you don't at all understand reference, which is no surprise. That's why you're so confused.

Look, it's pointless to interact with you, as well. I'm stopping bothering with the crazies. So have fun talking to the other crazies.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:09 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:02 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:00 pm

You're confusing signifiers and signifieds. References and referents.

One referring to itself makes it simultaneously that which references and that which is referred too.

. . . and you don't at all understand reference, which is no surprise. That's why you're so confused.

Look, it's pointless to interact with you, as well. I'm stopping bothering with the crazies. So have fun talking to the other crazies.

A "reference" is that which refers too. That which refers to points too. To say there are multiple identities for the term "reference" is to equivocate one word to a plethora of meanings thus resulting in the very same problem this OP is pointing too.

Your inability to explain your point and refer to an ad hominum, ie attacking the arguer and not the argument, only shows where your argument falls short.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:13 pm A "reference" is that which refers too. That which refers to points too. To say there are multiple identities for the term "reference" is to equivocate one word to a plethora of meanings thus resulting in the very same problem this OP is pointing too.

Your inability to explain your point and refer to an ad hominum, ie attacking the arguer and not the argument, only shows where your argument falls short.

Philosophers indoctrinated in the Aristotelian religion are about as likely to reject the identity axiom as Christians are to reject God.