Philosophy Now Forum

In discussion or understanding with words we talk about what is the same. However nothing remians the same except in a limited way.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:38 am In discussion or understanding with words we talk about what is the same. However nothing remians the same except in a limited way.

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.

An oak leaf is an oak leaf: A is A.

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

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:38 am In discussion or understanding with words we talk about what is the same. However nothing remians the same except in a limited way.

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.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:12 pm An oak leaf is an oak leaf: A is A.

a gold oak leaf is a major while a silver oak leaf is a lt. colonel …

-Imp

Leibniz's law. Some.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:43 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:12 pm An oak leaf is an oak leaf: A is A.

a gold oak leaf is a major while a silver oak leaf is a lt. colonel …

-Imp

An oak leaf cluster signifies a repeated award.

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

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

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:38 am In discussion or understanding with words we talk about what is the same. However nothing remians the same except in a limited way.

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.

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.

Clones?

Set theory treats everything as 'classes' (or sets). This is what is common as a genus and actually represents 'nothing' in itself. The empty set/class is what is treated as the only certain thing shared by all classes. Then everything else is distinctly 'unique' (or treated as such). The 'copied' elements of a set are considered equivalent to a reduced set with no members in common beyond the empty set itself.

The universal set contains all classes that are elemental but being that it then contains itselr as a member, makes this set a universal class that is 'infinite'.

So the laws of logic are parted in three perspectives based upon the nothing, something, and infinite perspectives: 'same' (universal property belonging to nothing or nothingness) , 'not same' (universal property of distinction or uniqueness), and 'same and not same' (the conflict of being both ...which here also happen to mean not-both simultaneously and is the universal property o infinity).

So we need a set of three postulates that cover all possibilities.

(1) a rule about identity
(2) a rule about the complement * to this identity
(3) a rule about continuity where (1) and (2) are both true or both not true in the same way.

So,

(1) x is equalent in meaning to x (itself)
(2) x is not equivalent in meaning to what is not-x (the existence of a complement)
(3) x is equivalent in meaning to x and not-x (the existence of an alternative to both or neither as a 'contradiction')

* or "denial of the identity"

For example, pretend then that

(1) X exists.

Then it is necessarily true that

(2) something other than X exists by contrast or it would lack meaning by itself. [some not-X exists or simply non-X exists]

But then, for assuming (1) that assures (2) follows,

(3) Both X and non-X exist as a Universal collective in some greater place.


NOW, as an instance here is where I argue the reality of Totality's existence:
(1) Let X mean "Absolutely Nothing"

(2) Then (1) implies that some non-X exists meaning that "Absolutely Something" exists

(3) Then (1) and (2) are true as a collective truth: X and not-X meaning that "nothing and anything" coexist in Totality which is identical to
"Absolutely Everything" exists.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:15 am

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

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

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.

Clones?

No not even clones can occupy the same space/time. In effect every oak leaf is a clone of its neighbour as it is produced by exactly the same DNA, yet they are all different.
As two clones cannot occupy the same space time they cannot share exactly the same experience and constantly diverge.

the apple is the apple and is no other apple

A is A

...and...

an apple is an apple (it does not transform into a pineapple, or penguin)

A is A

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:26 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:15 am

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

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.

Clones?

No not even clones can occupy the same space/time. In effect every oak leaf is a clone of its neighbour as it is produced by exactly the same DNA, yet they are all different.
As two clones cannot occupy the same space time they cannot share exactly the same experience and constantly diverge.

Good point.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:26 pm the apple is the apple and is no other apple

You got it wrong henry. An apple is itself and nothing else.

Another apple is itself also. It's not the same as the first apple.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:26 pm A is A

Those are two apples. They are different apples.

A is not A. Both A and A are the same TYPE of thing. Apples.