Information is fundamental to cognition

[Age]

X = X
IF the "X's" are the same THEN the above is true.
IF the "X's" are different THEN the above is false.

Which one is it? True or false?

Obviously the X's are different. Can you NOT see that?

So X = X is false ?

No.

So X = Х is True?

Not necessarily so.

So if X = X is neither true nor false, what is it then?

Give us a word.

To sum this up.

IF the "X's" are different THEN the above is false.

Obviously the X's are different. Can you NOT see that?

Therefore X = X is FALSE....

Not necessarily so.

Herding contrarians and sophist sure is a strange hobby!

Giving labels to things of which they are NOT is also a very strange hobby.

[Eodnhoj7]

False dichotomy.

It is simultaneously the same and different rose.

Same as in repitition of symmetry, false as symmetry exists (due to time, reproduction and various other qualities) in variation. This variation exists as an extension of the base symmetry of the rose.

The answer is true and false.

Second the "more plausible" hypothesis, out of infinite hypothesis is a relativistic statement as what is "more plausible" is relative to both the agreement of the observer and the group of observer's.

Then - is it the same pattern of information?

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

A pattern of information (or form) is the pattern or content of an instance or piece of information. Many separate pieces of information may share the same form. We can say that those pieces are perfectly correlated or say that they are copies of each other, as in copies of a book.

The question of the same pattern of information can be observed by particles stemming in and out of a vacuum.

1. The particles appear spontaneous.

2. The particles all exist through linear movements.

3. The replication of 1 linear movement, through many linear movements observes the same thing in infinite variation.

4. We are left with a contradiction of one movement, through many movements (considering "movement" is the phenomenon itself, nothing exists without movement)

5. The particles, effectively moving and disappearing, observes the "line" existing and then not-existing.

6. The existence of the "line" (through the particle) observes the vacuume diverging into "being". Dually the particles converging results in a simultaneous divergence from there original position resulting in vacuum through the divergence of the particles. Existence requires synthesis as simultaneous convergence and divergence.

7. The non-existence of the "line" (through the vacuum) observes "being" diverging into "vacuum" or infinite reduction, or vaccuum converging through the divergence of "being". Non-existence, deficiency in existence considering the vaccuum is observed only through multiple particles, requires synthesis as simultaneous convergence and divergence.

8. The line exists and does not exist simultaneously. If may exist in one position and not another and vice versa. Position takes into account the nature of movement; where the vaccuum state allows for a separation of particles allowing for "position" to exist as a state of relation.

9. Position fundamentally is grounded in multiplicity; however if the vacuum as a time zone is observed from a larger time zone where all the particles are seen at once, the vacuum dissapears but a seperate vaccuum takes place between the framework (where all appears as one) and the seperate framework where the original vacuum is localized as an instantaneous timezone in itself.

10. Relation is approximation, but exists through the particles as extensions of the one field being observed. As observed in point 9, all localization (whether it be the Particle existing through linear movement or the vacuum observing all particles at Once, all localization observes an inherent nature of "instantaneousness" where one time zone is instantaneous relative to another time zone of a different size.

11. The particle, through the line, (this can represent the rose in time) is an extension of a constant form seen approximately where any percievable variation is strictly an extension of the one field.


The Rose is both the same and different with any "timezone" localization observing all the variations of the rose's existing as "one rose".

[Age]

So if X = X is neither true nor false, what is it then?

Give us a word.

Maybe the word is assignment, not exactly unlike the following:

The variable “x” is assigned the value of the expression “x is neither true nor false”.

In the context of programming, sure, but I am merely using "=" because people aren't programmers and they understand "=" in its comparative sense.
Since you understand the difference treat "=" as "==".

The point I was making was in context of this

IF the "X's" are the same THEN the above is true.
IF the "X's" are different THEN the above is false.

IF X = X is neither true or false it's the same as saying "when we compare X to X it is neither same nor different"

I am looking for a word or a phrase that means "neither the same nor different".

The words "confused" and "indecisive" comes to mind.

If you are confused and undecided, then so be it.

If "you" can not see how the two X's are different, then that is "you" who owns that perceptive? It is also "your" conclusion that has been arrived at here. If you "see" X to X being neither same nor different, then that is "your" observation, NOT mine.

[surreptitious57]

Then is it the same pattern of information

Yes it is according to the definition because they are copies of each other even though they
are not absolutely identical but remarkably similar for the eye not to notice any difference

[Logik]

The question of the same pattern of information can be observed by particles stemming in and out of a vacuum.

1. The particles appear spontaneous.

Is it the same particles that constantly appear in and out of a vacuum or different ones?

[commonsense]

So if X = X is neither true nor false, what is it then?

Give us a word.

Maybe the word is assignment, not exactly unlike the following:

The variable “x” is assigned the value of the expression “x is neither true nor false”.

In the context of programming, sure, but I am merely using "=" because people aren't programmers and they understand "=" in its comparative sense.
Since you understand the difference treat "=" as "==".

The point I was making was in context of this

IF the "X's" are the same THEN the above is true.
IF the "X's" are different THEN the above is false.

IF X = X is neither true or false it's the same as saying "when we compare X to X it is neither same nor different"

I am looking for a word or a phrase that means "neither the same nor different".

The words "confused" and "indecisive" comes to mind.

The word is “fuzzy”.

[commonsense]

AX = AX [ TRUE ]
BX = BX [ TRUE ]
AX = BX [ FALSE ]
BX = AX [ FALSE ]

The first two do not necessitate that the other two are false. Is this a problem for your argument?

[Eodnhoj7]

The question of the same pattern of information can be observed by particles stemming in and out of a vacuum.

1. The particles appear spontaneous.

Is it the same particles that constantly appear in and out of a vacuum or different ones?

Both.

[commonsense]

Please respond to the poll and then explain what process/procedure you used to determine the more plausible hypothesis.

I flipped a coin, then I made my selection. Any other method would be tedious and would not lead to better results.

Also (if you can) please state your certainty as to the correctness of your conclusion e.g how much probability do you assign to the follow-up hypothesis e.g that you may have made a mistake.

My confidence is 50%, as that is the probability for coin tossing.