Philosophy Now Forum

Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.
You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration. Even the instant of swallowing food is a duration of time. There is no action which does not occur over a duration of time thus something may both be itself and not be itself at the same time considering time is a length.

Congratulations. You have caught up to Plato and Heraclitus. Only ±2000 years to go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_no ... Heraclitus

The LNC is ambiguous because it pre-supposes a well-defined notion of "sameness".

propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time

Is A the same as A? It depends on who you ask.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:35 am Congratulations. You have caught up to Plato and Heraclitus. Only ±2000 years to go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_no ... Heraclitus

The LNC is ambiguous because it pre-supposes a well-defined notion of "sameness".

propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time

Is A the same as A? It depends on who you ask.

If you ask me, A resembles A but what does Leibniz say about identical objects?

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:07 pm If you ask me, A resembles A but what does Leibniz say about identical objects?

The identity of indiscernables is a non-starter as a definition/conception. It's uttrerly incoherent.

If two objects share all of their properties you still have two objects.

Ship of Theseus and all that jazz.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:58 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:07 pm If you ask me, A resembles A but what does Leibniz say about identical objects?

The identity of indiscernables is a non-starter as a definition/conception. It's uttrerly incoherent.

If two objects share all of their properties you still have two objects.

Ship of Theseus and all that jazz.

A and A are not identical because they don't occupy the same space.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:41 pm A and A are not identical because they don't occupy the same space.

I agree, but Liebnitz wouldnt. Neither would most Mathematicians.

If you turn a blind eye to location within the coordinate system they share all other properties.

But then 1 = 1 is false. And Mathematics falters.

Equational reasoning is grounded upon the falsehood that A = A.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:44 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:41 pm A and A are not identical because they don't occupy the same space.

I agree, but Liebnitz wouldnt. Neither would most Mathematicians.

If you turn a blind eye to location within the coordinate system they share all other properties.

But then 1 = 1 is false. And Mathematics falters.

Equational reasoning is grounded upon the falsehood that A = A.

If the second A has the same atoms as the first A, then the second A IS the first A but in a different position but that is impossible because atoms cannot be at two places at one time.

1+1 is not false because both 1's have identical meanings.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:58 pm 1+1 is not false because both 1's have identical meanings.

1=1 is the assertion that 1 is the same as (identical to) 1.

You just said that's false because they occopy different positions in space.

Are you recanting now?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:13 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:58 pm 1+1 is not false because both 1's have identical meanings.

1=1 is the assertion that 1 is the same as (identical to) 1.

You just said that's false because they occopy different positions in space.

Are you recanting now?

Physically identical is not the same as identical meaning.

You seem to think that a representation does not denote what it refers to. .

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:21 pm Physically identical is not the same identical meaning.

"Physialy identical" is an incoherent notion. Physicists only talk about indistinguishability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_logic

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:21 pm You seem to think that a representation does not denote what it refers to. .

What is it that you think the symbol 1 denotes; refers to; or represents?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:33 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:21 pm Physically identical is not the same identical meaning.

"Physialy identical" is an incoherent notion. Physicists only talk about indistinguishability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_logic

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:21 pm You seem to think that a representation does not denote what it refers to. .

What is it that you think the symbol 1 denotes; refers to; or represents?

You think it is only physical and has no meaning. Asking me to explain denote is not going to change your mind

You are not the 1 who understands what I write.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:42 pm You think it is only physical and has no meaning. Asking me to explain denote is not going to change your mind.

You are just stalling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

Numbers don't exist. They are just notation. 1 doesn't mean anything.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:47 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:42 pm You think it is only physical and has no meaning. Asking me to explain denote is not going to change your mind.

You are just stalling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

Numbers don't exist. They are just notation. 1 doesn't mean anything.

You are not the 1 who understands symbols.

You don't mean anything except how to be annoying.

Good bye!

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:55 pm You are not the 1 who understands symbols.

You don't mean anything.

I am pretty sure you don't even understand what it means to understand.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:35 am Congratulations. You have caught up to Plato and Heraclitus. Only ±2000 years to go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_no ... Heraclitus

The LNC is ambiguous because it pre-supposes a well-defined notion of "sameness".

propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time

Is A the same as A? It depends on who you ask.

You referenced but did not read fully, i.e.

"Unfortunately, so little remains of Heraclitus' aphorisms that not much about his philosophy can be said with certainty."

Due to the above limitations your reference cannot be credible.

What is most critical within the LNC is the criteria 'same sense'.
If one can counter the LNC within the same time [re formal logic], you are not likely to counter it within the same sense.

I believe what most people misunderstand is the LNC is one of the Three Laws of Logic which is confined to Traditional and Formal logic and not to other forms of logic, e.g. fuzzy, intuitional logic and others.

Therefore the LNC is not an absolute Law of all Logic.

As Kant stated, formal logic has its advantage merely based on its limitations.
Therefore the LNC is only valid within its defined framework.

Nevertheless the OP is countering the LNC within its framework but unsuccessfully due to his ignorance of the criteria of 'same sense', i.e. trying to be a smart-alec but exposed as a smart-fool.

So one should not fool around with the LNC within its stipulated framework, i.e. applicable to traditional and formal logic only, else it will make one a fool.