Page 1 of 6
P=/=P
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:28 am
by Eodnhoj7
Equivocation occurs through variation, 3+1=2+2 observes simultaneously different numbers defining the same thing. Equivocation is thus symmetry where different properties share common bonds, in the case of 3+1=2+2 the number 4 is a common bond. However, both 1+3 and 2+2 are different variations.
P may represent one identity under two different circumstances which define it differently. For example a person in x time and space is not the same person in y time and space yet P=P observes the same person.
Under these terms, where each P of P=P represents a different position, the law of identity is best expressed as just P.
Re: P=/=P
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:26 am
by Terrapin Station
Again, equivocation occurs when you use:
(1) the same term(s)--which can be a variable, a proper name, a term picking out a particular, a type term--whatever
to refer to
(2) something different in two different instances--either a different respect/aspect, a different context, at a different time, etc.
but where
(3) you're using the two (or more) instances of the term as if you're referring to the same thing.
Those are the three requirements for equivocation.
When an argument occurs with those three conditions, the fallacy of equivocation has occurred.
Equivocation, in philosophy, in logic, etc., doesn't conventionally refer to anything aside from this. "Equivocation" doesn't conventionally refer to anything about "symmetry," "sharing common bonds," or anything like that.
So for example, if we say, "The cat is on the mat and the cat is not on the mat" as an example of a "true contradiction," but where what we're really saying is that part of the cat's body is on the mat and a different part of the cat's body is off the mat, then we're committing the fallacy of equivocation. "The cat" (as well as "the mat" and any other repeated terms) has to refer to the same thing, in the same respect, in the same temporal context, etc. in all instances of "the cat" in the argument, unless we make clear that we're using the term to refer to two at least slightly different things, otherwise we're equivocating and forwarding a fallacious argument.
Re: P=/=P
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:26 am
by Eodnhoj7
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:26 am
Again, equivocation occurs when you use:
(1) the
same term(s)--which can be a variable, a proper name, a term picking out a particular, a type term--whatever
to refer to
(2) something different in two different instances--either a different respect/aspect, a different context, at a different time, etc.
but where
(3) you're using the two (or more) instances of the term
as if you're referring to the same thing.
Those are the three requirements for equivocation.
When an argument occurs with those three conditions, the fallacy of equivocation has occurred.
Equivocation, in philosophy, in logic, etc., doesn't conventionally refer to anything aside from this. "Equivocation" doesn't conventionally refer to anything about "symmetry," "sharing common bonds," or anything like that.
So for example, if we say, "The cat is on the mat and the cat is not on the mat" as an example of a "true contradiction," but where what we're really saying is that part of the cat's body is on the mat and a different part of the cat's body is off the mat, then we're committing the fallacy of equivocation. "The cat" (as well as "the mat" and any other repeated terms) has to refer to the same thing, in the same respect, in the same temporal context, etc. in all instances of "the cat" in the argument, unless we make clear that we're using the term to refer to two at least slightly different things, otherwise we're equivocating and forwarding a fallacious argument.
And what is "sameness" other than commonly repeated underlying forms?
1. And what determines the two terms being the same unless they share a common bond? 2+2 and 1+3 both share the common bond of 4.
2. All different assertions mandate a common underlying middle phenomenon. A horse and cow both share the same form as mammal.
3. The same thing can be expressed through a multitude of means thus necessitating an inherent difference. For example a man may exist across time and space x and y but time and space x and y observe the man as different in each scenario. The same thing does not always equivocate to itself.
There is no thing equal to itself in the same time, same respect, same etc as each of these are contexts which result in further contexts beyond it that eventually differ. For example the cat in January is the cat in January, however the cat in the third week of January is not the same as the cat in the second week in January. There is always a context beyond one context of time and space which eventually differs.
Re: P=/=P
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:33 am
by Eodnhoj7
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:26 am
Again, equivocation occurs when you use:
(1) the
same term(s)--which can be a variable, a proper name, a term picking out a particular, a type term--whatever
to refer to
(2) something different in two different instances--either a different respect/aspect, a different context, at a different time, etc.
but where
(3) you're using the two (or more) instances of the term
as if you're referring to the same thing.
Those are the three requirements for equivocation.
When an argument occurs with those three conditions, the fallacy of equivocation has occurred.
Equivocation, in philosophy, in logic, etc., doesn't conventionally refer to anything aside from this. "Equivocation" doesn't conventionally refer to anything about "symmetry," "sharing common bonds," or anything like that.
So for example, if we say, "The cat is on the mat and the cat is not on the mat" as an example of a "true contradiction," but where what we're really saying is that part of the cat's body is on the mat and a different part of the cat's body is off the mat, then we're committing the fallacy of equivocation. "The cat" (as well as "the mat" and any other repeated terms) has to refer to the same thing, in the same respect, in the same temporal context, etc. in all instances of "the cat" in the argument, unless we make clear that we're using the term to refer to two at least slightly different things, otherwise we're equivocating and forwarding a fallacious argument.
"In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument. It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence." Google
Equivocation as a fallacy is subject to equivocation as multiple definitions under multiple words with multiple meanings occur. You have one definition, Google has another yet the fallacy of equivocation is expressed under multiple meanings as multiple definitions. Equivocation points to multiple definitions.
The particular word "equivocation" has multiple definitions.
Re: P=/=P
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:34 pm
by Terrapin Station
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:26 am
And what is "sameness"
Identity. Literally the same thing.
1. And what determines the two terms being the same
They're literally the same. So two instances of "cat," or "P" or whatever it might be.
Re: P=/=P
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:42 pm
by Terrapin Station
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:33 am
"In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument. It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence." Google
Equivocation as a fallacy is subject to equivocation as multiple definitions under multiple words
You're not comprehending what you're reading. The Google definition doesn't say anything different than what I just said above.
It's not multiple words. The Google definition says a
particular word/expression. That's one word.
Re my explanation, "refer to (2) something different in two different instances--either a different respect/aspect, a different context, at a different time . . . " IS multiple definitions.
So you don't have 101-level material under your belt, you're not understanding what you're reading, yet you want to argue about it.
In other words, we could say "Welcome to the Internet."
Re: P=/=P
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:48 pm
by Skepdick
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:34 pm
Identity. Literally the same thing.
Then P = P is necessarily always false.
The P on the left is different to the P on the right.
They have different coordinates in spacetime.
Re: P=/=P
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:49 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:48 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:34 pm
Identity. Literally the same thing.
Then P = P is necessarily always false.
The P on the left is different to the P on the right.
They have different coordinates in spacetime.
Reference, how does it work?
Re: P=/=P
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:55 pm
by Skepdick
It works however it is designed to work.
In system A, P = P is false.
In system B, P = P is true.
Re: P=/=P
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:57 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:55 pm
It works however it is designed to work.
In system C, you're a troll.
Re: P=/=P
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:01 pm
by Skepdick
Strawman + ad hominem!
Here is my claim formalized/proven in the most precise and rigorous language possible. Mathematics.
Feel free to test/reproduce the science yourself using any Python interpreter.
identity.png
I eagerly await your Philosophical apologism.
Re: P=/=P
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:04 pm
by Terrapin Station
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:01 pm
Strawman + ad hominem!
In which system?
Re: P=/=P
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:05 pm
by Skepdick
The one you subscribe to.
Re: P=/=P
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:04 am
by Eodnhoj7
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:34 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:26 am
And what is "sameness"
Identity. Literally the same thing.
1. And what determines the two terms being the same
They're literally the same. So two instances of "cat," or "P" or whatever it might be.
Thus the same thing is expressed through a multitude of words therefore resulting in equivocation.
If "identity" results in "sameness" and "sameness" results in "identity" then a circular reasoning occurs.
Saying two instances of "P" or "Cat" to occur necessitates the instances as seperate thus different.
Re: P=/=P
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:09 am
by Eodnhoj7
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:42 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:33 am
"In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument. It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence." Google
Equivocation as a fallacy is subject to equivocation as multiple definitions under multiple words
You're not comprehending what you're reading. The Google definition doesn't say anything different than what I just said above.
It's not multiple words. The Google definition says a
particular word/expression. That's one word.
Re my explanation, "refer to (2) something different in two different instances--either a different respect/aspect, a different context, at a different time . . . " IS multiple definitions.
So you don't have 101-level material under your belt, you're not understanding what you're reading, yet you want to argue about it.
In other words, we could say "Welcome to the Internet."
Actually it says one thing under a multitude of expressions. One thing is expressed in a multitude of ways. The particular word "equivocation" is expressed under a variety of means. A variety of terms mean the same thing thus two seemingly different things equivocate.