The Law of Identity

[RCSaunders]

The square root of 1 is both +1 and -1: both are equally valid. The same is true for *A, whose mathematical notation would be √A.

You have made an egregious category mistake.

"A," is a pickle. What is the square root of a pickle?

In the law of identity, "A is A," A refers to an existent, not an abstract concept like number.

Whoah, there. Let's go through this.

A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. An example is the metaphor "time crawled", which if taken literally is not just false but a category mistake. To show that a category mistake has been committed one must typically show that once the phenomenon in question is properly understood, it becomes clear that the claim being made about it could not possibly be true.

There is a cosmological constant to which all bodies are relative to:
the expansion of the universe; the speed of light, c,
their own particular displacement(s) marked by the gravity
of their own body, thus:
A can not equal A, as A is a combination of two:
+cosmological constant
-gravity of body

Therefor, to-and-from c are universally valid arguments: +c (to) and -c (from).
Because all bodies are in relation to, considering body A, the same must contain
intrinsic variability +A and -A to capture orientation and/or velocity to/from ±c.

A ≠ A
√c = +c, -c
A = +A, -A
A = *A
___________________________
*capacity to orient/move in relation to c

Now *A can be any displaced body from c, unity, or less/greater than.

Now imbue *A with the following:
I Am = Impetus of body
the Alpha = universal operator: '+all'
the Omega = universal operator: '-not'
*the beg: = +universal root of any object/subject
*the end = -universal root of any object/subject
__________________________________________
*wherein the beg/end is the real root(s) of any temporal phenomena



Now *A can navigate universal roots by use of their own operators: all, and not.
Now *A can choose their own roots: to know, and/or to believe, as two "trees":
To know all thus not to believe thus tends towards all-knowing, whereas
To believe all thus not to know thus tends towards all-belief-based ignorance causing suffering/death.

They reflect the trees of Eden, and are both local within and universal without.

"A," is a pickle. What is the square root of a pickle?

A pickle is not a breathing body, thus A works for 'dead' objects as +A.
This is why A can not describe all universal phenomena, such as breathing bodies
whose intrinsic capacity to breathe mandates a reciprocal relationship between + and -
in the same way space and time are reciprocally related.

In the law of identity, "A is A," A refers to an existent, not an abstract concept like number.

Neither breathing nor the speed of light are themselves "numbers".
The speed of light can be measured in any unit desired,
but it already is a natural unit
of one unit of space over one unit of time:

c=1s/1t
√c={+spacial, -spacial}, {+temporal, -temporal}
√c={all space, not space}, {all time, not time}
factored:
√c={all, not}, {space, time}

Therefor the {alpha/omega/beg/end} quaternion is the light of the universe: the photon,
having 0 mass/displacement from c, as unity.

Oh my! You should have stuck with the category mistake. That's easily correctable, at least more correctable than the rationalistic insanity you have followed it with. A, "photon," is only a model or illustration, a conceptual way of picturing one aspect of electromagnetic phenomena. You have now heaped hypostatization, and reification on top of your category mistake.

[Skepdick]

Oh my! You should have stuck with the category mistake. That's easily correctable, at least more correctable than the rationalistic insanity you have followed it with. A, "photon," is only a model or illustration, a conceptual way of picturing one aspect of electromagnetic phenomena. You have now heaped hypostatization, and reification on top of your category mistake.

But if logic is invented, then why do logical fallacies even matter?

[RCSaunders]

But if logic is invented, then why do logical fallacies even matter?

A logical fallacy is a mistake in how logic is used. If you don't care what happens when you use something like logic, or language, or mathematics, or anything else that is a human invention, then mistakes don't matter. If you know what logic is and care about how it is used you'll avoid mistakes (fallacies), just as one who knows what the invention, nitroglycerin, is cares how it is used and avoids mistakes (blowing themselves up).

If you don't care, don't worry about it. If you make a mistake with nitroglycerin you might blow up someone else, along with yourself. At least with logic, if you make a mistake, it's only your own mind you blow up.

[nothing]

Oh my! You should have stuck with the category mistake. That's easily correctable, at least more correctable than the rationalistic insanity you have followed it with. A, "photon," is only a model or illustration, a conceptual way of picturing one aspect of electromagnetic phenomena. You have now heaped hypostatization, and reification on top of your category mistake.

Oh my! Lions and tigers and bears!

Dorothy, a real photon is not a "model", it is a very real universal phenomena.
The issue is not whether or not photons are real universal phenomena, but rather what a photon actually "is".
We use models to describe photons, but photons are not only models of electromagnetic phenomena.

But if logic is invented, then why do logical fallacies even matter?

A logical fallacy is a mistake in how logic is used. If you don't care what happens when you use something like logic, or language, or mathematics, or anything else that is a human invention, then mistakes don't matter. If you know what logic is and care about how it is used you'll avoid mistakes (fallacies), just as one who knows what the invention, nitroglycerin, is cares how it is used and avoids mistakes (blowing themselves up).

If you don't care, don't worry about it. If you make a mistake with nitroglycerin you might blow up someone else, along with yourself. At least with logic, if you make a mistake, it's only your own mind you blow up.

Any logic is only as good as the being employing it.
Any system of logic is only as good as the being(s) who designed it.

A=A describes an inanimate/dead object, thus is not a universal variable.
It can serve as one for dead/inanimate objects, but not animated ones
whose impetus (ie. will, motivation etc.) is variable in relation to, say, c,
which mandates a basic +/- orientation. This orientation is already intrinsic
to the natural universe: an outward progression, and an inward gravitation
according to the particular displacement(s) (ie. gravity) of a body(s)
from the natural progression whose constant is c, the speed of light.

A vesica piscis can be used to denote these two expressions of √c:
+c as the natural progression, and
-c as gravity of body.

Bodies in relation to have their orientations flipped:
+A as the gravity of body, and
-A as the natural progression.

Therefor, there is mandated a need for bi-directional rotational-based relationships
thus mandating universal variables to be endowed with the same.

A ≠ A

[Arising_uk]

The equals sign is irrelevant: ...

Is it? Then why do you keep using it, albeit incorrectly with respect to the idea of the Law of Identity.

A is not endowed with the universality of being able to move. ...

It's just a variable and in the context of Logic it just stands for a proposition.

The square root of 1 is both +1 and -1: both are equally valid. ...

No it's not, the square root of 1 can either be +1 or -1 and either are valid but it cannot be both.

The same is true for *A, whose mathematical notation would be √A. ...

No it's not, these are two different A's, the A with the square root sign is a variable for a number, no idea what the A with the star is supposed to be?

Because A is not B. ...

Sure it is if you put an equals sign between them but it'd depend what they are.

He's dead, and so is his logic.

And this is what's irritating about those who come to a Philosophy forum not bothering to read a jot of what Philosophy has said, as no shit sherlock we haven't used Aristotle's logic since before the 12th century, what we do use is Symbolic Logic.

[nothing]

Is it? Then why do you keep using it, albeit incorrectly with respect to the idea of the Law of Identity.

I reject the Law of Identity, A ≠ A

I use it the same reason anyone uses any such symbol: as it serves the necessity of communicating equivalence.

It's just a variable and in the context of Logic it just stands for a proposition.

Every proposition has its own inverse. Hence:

A ≠ A
√A = +A, -A
+A = Proposition
-A = Propositional Inverse

+ Islam is a religion of peace.
- Islam is a religion of perpetual conflict.
___________________________________
which is more true?

Circles have two directions:
clockwise and counter-clock-wise
just as beings have two orientations:
right-side-up, and upside-down.

The inversion factor relating to the latter
is belief. It takes a believer to believe
the opposite of what is true, hence
180-degree inversion from any true proposition,
esp. a false one to which the upside-down is bound.

No it's not, the square root of 1 can either be +1 or -1 and either are valid but it cannot be both.

Absolute nonsense. Both 1x1 and -1x-1 are equally valid operations to produce 1.

No it's not, these are two different A's, the A with the square root sign is a variable for a number, no idea what the A with the star is supposed to be?

*A can be +A and/or -A.
+A↔*A↔-A
* allows capturing of any/all relative motion/orientation.

As if a root:
+1↔√1↔-1
+1↔*1↔-1
thus √ and * have the same function, but not numerical.
The "roots" of *A, if a living being, is their capacity to breathe in/out,
thus reciprocity of +A and -A is an intrinsic characteristic.

Sure it is if you put an equals sign between them but it'd depend what they are.

Because it depends, A ≠ B
To say "it can..." is the same as me saying A can equal A
which I do say, and obviously is true, but I also say
not necessarily true, thus A ≠ A because it is not necessarily true.

[RCSaunders]

I reject the Law of Identity, A ≠ A

How about the law of gravity. Do you reject that too? If "A" is, "gravity," than, since you believe A is not A, gravity is not gravity, right? Depending on how certain you are, you could go to a high building and try it out. If you do, you won't be letting us know about it.

[nothing]

I reject the Law of Identity, A ≠ A

How about the law of gravity. Do you reject that too? If "A" is, "gravity," than, since you believe A is not A, gravity is not gravity, right? Depending on how certain you are, you could go to a high building and try it out. If you do, you won't be letting us know about it.

I don't know of any "law" of gravity, thus none to accept or reject,
therefor "A" simply being "gravity" is meaningless to me as-is.

If you are referring to the general phenomena of gravity itself,
if such a law were articulated,
a binary is mandated: yes/no, therefor +A and -A are mandated.

You can not arbitrarily remove the yes/no, be/not be operators:
they are universal, as like a universal alpha/omega, thus
A must have this intrinsic alpha-omega orientation: √A or *A.

A+←A→-A

In the case of jumping off buildings, it would take a "believer" to "believe"
gravity would not act on them, thus:
+A = "believe" and jump
-A = "know" not to jump
*A has two options

Now take those two binary operators and apply to "to know" and "to believe"
regarding all and not and you have the two Edenic trees as a birotation
whose possible contingencies lie within itself:
to know all thus: not to believe (tends towards all-knowing)
to believe all thus: not to know (tends towards all-belief-based ignorance(s) causing suffering.

Look at the "believers" on planet - see which tree they eat from, and their fruits:
spilling blood over books/idols due to a "believer vs. unbeliever" division
they cause and perpetuate. The same is the eating from the tree of knowledge
of such universal roots as good/evil - one begins to justify one as the other via "BELIEF".

[RCSaunders]

I don't know of any "law" of gravity, ...

Well, I believe you.