The Classical law of identity (as stated) is inconsistent

[Speakpigeon]

Could you give examples of classical logic formulas and definitions that show that the notion of identity is inconsistent in classical logic?
In fact, this is something you should have done in your first post. You merely claim the notion of identity is inconsistent in classical logic and then you don't bother to prove how it is effectively inconsistent.
Personally, I have not the faintest idea how that could possibly be and you opening post doesn't say anything as to how it is.
EB

This is something I DID DO in my post. The integer 1 has two distinct properties. value and identity.
Are you asking me to turn water into wine again?

The identity of 1 is 140717799569152
The value of 1 is 1.

which is expressed in Python as:
for all x: x = x # Meaning for all 1: 1 = 1 e.g value
for all x: id(x) = id(x) # Meaning for all 1: 140717799569152 = 140717799569152 e.g identity

This speaks to the CONCEPT of Universally Unique Identifier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal ... identifier
And the way to understand that concept is to think of a Turing machine and its infinite ticker tape. Every block on the tape has a unique position in spacetime. Block 1 may contain an A, block 2 may contain an A. The value of both As will be the same, the identity will not.

I further demonstrated that two integers can and do have the same identity and value, but two humans do not:

https://repl.it/@LogikLogicus/IdentityAndValue

And simply from the Python example above it seems to me that A = A is woefully incomplete.

for some x: x = x => True
for some x: x = x => False
for some x: id(x) = id(x) => True
for some x: id(x) = id(x) => False

Which is what you WOULD expect from two different properties. Because 2^2 gives you 4 permutations.

But the simplest way to say it in English and following straight from the wikipedia page's example of "a rose is a rose is a rose".

A rose is a rose is a rose.
But one rose is not another.

I said, "Could you give examples of classical logic formulas and definitions that show that the notion of identity is inconsistent in classical logic?"
EB

[Logik]

I said, "Could you give examples of classical logic formulas and definitions that show that the notion of identity is inconsistent in classical logic?"
EB

Do you even understand what you are asking me to do?!?!?

1. You are asking me to demonstrate an inconsistency IN an inconsistent logic!
2. You are asking me to do ALL THE WORK for you. You don't pay for my fucking time.

What is inconsistent is the notion of =

Identity: A = A
Equality: A = A

This is called EQUIVOCATION.
In linguistics it is called semantic overloading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overload

And that is all there is to it!. Everything else is the Butterfly effect/Chaos.
One TINY error and logic explodes.

[Eodnhoj7]

I said, "Could you give examples of classical logic formulas and definitions that show that the notion of identity is inconsistent in classical logic?"
EB

Do you even understand what you are asking me to do?!?!?

1. You are asking me to demonstrate an inconsistency IN an inconsistent logic!
2. You are asking me to do ALL THE WORK for you. You don't pay for my fucking time.

What is inconsistent is the notion of =

Identity: A = A
Equality: A = A

This is called EQUIVOCATION.
In linguistics it is called semantic overloading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overload

And that is all there is to it!. Everything else is the Butterfly effect/Chaos.
One TINY error and logic explodes.

False, chaos is subject to specific laws that interweave through eachother...this is the grounding of logic...I have a thread up in metaphysics or epistemology addressing this.

Chaos is subject to laws, hence we are left with identity properties.

[Logik]

False, chaos is subject to specific laws that interweave through eachother...

Specific from whose perspective? The observer?

If the laws were specific the system wouldn't be chaotic.

You under-estimate complexity and epistemic uncertainty.

this is the grounding of logic...I have a thread up in metaphysics or epistemology addressing this.

No, it's not the grounding of logic. Logic is grounded in structure.
Logicians underestimate the complexity of the universe and the futility of attempting to replicate its structure in language (logic).

Chaos is subject to laws, hence we are left with identity properties.

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

[Eodnhoj7]

False, chaos is subject to specific laws that interweave through eachother...

Specific from whose perspective? The observer?

If the laws were specific the system wouldn't be chaotic.

You under-estimate complexity and epistemic uncertainty.

this is the grounding of logic...I have a thread up in metaphysics or epistemology addressing this.

No, it's not the grounding of logic. Logic is grounded in structure.
Logicians underestimate the complexity of the universe and the futility of attempting to replicate its structure in language (logic).

Chaos is subject to laws, hence we are left with identity properties.

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

False, chaos is the approximation of a unified phenomena through multiplicity. Multiplicity is subject to laws of recurssion, isomorphism, etc. (see the thread).

What computation does is subject "creation" with multiplicity...or in simpler terms it is a system about directing entropy by temporalizing phenomenon into a state of finiteness.

It is strictly an extension of the observer.

Python is a language that replicates into other languages.

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel...it is almost pathetic.

Face it, the language of python is the problems you see in other systems. It is a projection of your perspective, with this projection of perspective being grounded in recurssion.

Lorenzo system...rofl..."chaos theory".

I mean there you go again, trying to make things asymmetric to prove your point not realizing it is still subject to identity principles, and the corresponding laws that go with them, whether you like it or not.

You fail to understand all asymmetric elements always contain constant core elements that are symmetric. Asymmetry is synonymous to progressive multiplicity as variation.

[Eodnhoj7]

False, chaos is subject to specific laws that interweave through eachother...

Specific from whose perspective? The observer?

If the laws were specific the system wouldn't be chaotic.

You under-estimate complexity and epistemic uncertainty.

this is the grounding of logic...I have a thread up in metaphysics or epistemology addressing this.

No, it's not the grounding of logic. Logic is grounded in structure.
Logicians underestimate the complexity of the universe and the futility of attempting to replicate its structure in language (logic).

Chaos is subject to laws, hence we are left with identity properties.

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

False, chaos is the approximation of a unified phenomena through multiplicity. Multiplicity is subject to laws of recurssion, isomorphism, etc. (see the thread).

What computation does is subject "creation" with multiplicity...or in simpler terms it is a system about directing entropy by temporalizing phenomenon into a state of finiteness.

It is strictly an extension of the observer.

Python is a language that replicates into other languages.

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel...it is almost pathetic.

Face it, the language of python is the problems you see in other systems. It is a projection of your perspective, with this projection of perspective being grounded in recurssion.

Lorenzo system...rofl..."chaos theory".

I mean there you go again, trying to make things asymmetric to prove your point not realizing it is still subject to identity principles, and the corresponding laws that go with them, whether you like it or not.

You fail to understand all asymmetric elements always contain constant core elements that are symmetric. Asymmetry is synonymous to progressive multiplicity as variation.

[Logik]

False, chaos is the approximation of a unified phenomena through multiplicity.

The fundamental property of chaos is that it does not allow for approximation or prediction in open systems.

In the case of Loranz systems we are dealing with a closed system, so even though it's chaotic we still have bounded determinism.

What computation does is subject "creation" with multiplicity...or in simpler terms it is a system about directing entropy by temporalizing phenomenon into a state of finiteness.

It is strictly an extension of the observer.

Yes. Rogers' fixed point theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27 ... nt_theorem

Python is a language that replicates into other languages.

Recursion is the fundamental property of all Turing-complete systems. That I chose to do it in python is neither here nor there.

Rule 110 is Turing-complete. I can do what I did in python using Rule 110: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel...it is almost pathetic.

Face it, the language of python is the problems you see in other systems. It is a projection of your perspective, with this projection of perspective being grounded in recurssion.

Well DUUUUUUH.

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

Computability theory, also known as recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic, of computer science,

Turtles all the way down!

You fail to understand all asymmetric elements always contain constant core elements that are symmetric. Asymmetry is synonymous to progressive multiplicity as variation.

And what YOU fail to recognize is that those observed symmetries are still subject to the mind-projection fallacy.

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

[Speakpigeon]

I said, "Could you give examples of classical logic formulas and definitions that show that the notion of identity is inconsistent in classical logic?"
EB

Do you even understand what you are asking me to do?!?!?
1. You are asking me to demonstrate an inconsistency

Yes, but if you can't do it then you should refrain from claiming classical logic is inconsistent as if you could prove it.
EB

[Logik]

Yes, but if you can't do it then you should refrain from claiming classical logic is inconsistent as if you could prove it.
EB

I can prove it. I have demonstrated it and I am claiming it.

All in accordance with the bar for proof established by Curry-Howard isomorphism - I have met this bar in a Turing-complete logic.

That your notion of "proof" does not align with Curry-Howard is mostly your problem, not mine.
That you are unable to communicate your notion and expectations for "valid proof" to anybody else is again - your problem, not mine.

Recalibrate your expectations. I am not Jesus - I can't turn water into wine.

[Eodnhoj7]

False, chaos is the approximation of a unified phenomena through multiplicity.

The fundamental property of chaos is that it does not allow for approximation or prediction in open systems.

In the case of Loranz systems we are dealing with a closed system, so even though it's chaotic we still have bounded determinism.

false, chaos is an observation of a dualistic state where we observe phenomenon but cannot observe their full nature (ie predict) in accords to time. Chaos, is approximation.

What computation does is subject "creation" with multiplicity...or in simpler terms it is a system about directing entropy by temporalizing phenomenon into a state of finiteness.

It is strictly an extension of the observer.

Yes. Rogers' fixed point theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27 ... nt_theorem

Python is a language that replicates into other languages.

Recursion is the fundamental property of all Turing-complete systems. That I chose to do it in python is neither here nor there.

Rule 110 is Turing-complete. I can do what I did in python using Rule 110: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110

Recurssion is a set of rules in and of itself and as such exists as a framework. The simplest symbols we have of it are the line and circle through the point. Recurssion is a law.

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel...it is almost pathetic.

Face it, the language of python is the problems you see in other systems. It is a projection of your perspective, with this projection of perspective being grounded in recurssion.

Well DUUUUUUH.

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

Computability theory, also known as recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic, of computer science,

Turtles all the way down!

You fail to understand all asymmetric elements always contain constant core elements that are symmetric. Asymmetry is synonymous to progressive multiplicity as variation.

And what YOU fail to recognize is that those observed symmetries are still subject to the mind-projection fallacy.

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

Mind projection, where the observer projects his/her perspective is a replication of the subject into the object and vice versa. It is grounded in symmetry because of this base law of recursion.

[Logik]

False, chaos is the approximation of a unified phenomena through multiplicity.

The fundamental property of chaos is that it does not allow for approximation or prediction in open systems.

In the case of Loranz systems we are dealing with a closed system, so even though it's chaotic we still have bounded determinism.

false, chaos is an observation of a dualistic state where we observe phenomenon but cannot observe their full nature (ie predict) in accords to time. Chaos, is approximation.

What computation does is subject "creation" with multiplicity...or in simpler terms it is a system about directing entropy by temporalizing phenomenon into a state of finiteness.

It is strictly an extension of the observer.

Yes. Rogers' fixed point theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27 ... nt_theorem

Python is a language that replicates into other languages.

Recursion is the fundamental property of all Turing-complete systems. That I chose to do it in python is neither here nor there.

Rule 110 is Turing-complete. I can do what I did in python using Rule 110: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110

Recurssion is a set of rules in and of itself and as such exists as a framework. The simplest symbols we have of it are the line and circle through the point. Recurssion is a law.

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel...it is almost pathetic.

Face it, the language of python is the problems you see in other systems. It is a projection of your perspective, with this projection of perspective being grounded in recurssion.

Well DUUUUUUH.

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

Computability theory, also known as recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic, of computer science,

Turtles all the way down!

You fail to understand all asymmetric elements always contain constant core elements that are symmetric. Asymmetry is synonymous to progressive multiplicity as variation.

And what YOU fail to recognize is that those observed symmetries are still subject to the mind-projection fallacy.

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

Mind projection, where the observer projects his/her perspective is a replication of the subject into the object and vice versa. It is grounded in symmetry because of this base law of recursion.

It's asymmetric because of the anthropic principle.

[Eodnhoj7]

The fundamental property of chaos is that it does not allow for approximation or prediction in open systems.

In the case of Loranz systems we are dealing with a closed system, so even though it's chaotic we still have bounded determinism.

false, chaos is an observation of a dualistic state where we observe phenomenon but cannot observe their full nature (ie predict) in accords to time. Chaos, is approximation.


Yes. Rogers' fixed point theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27 ... nt_theorem


Recursion is the fundamental property of all Turing-complete systems. That I chose to do it in python is neither here nor there.

Rule 110 is Turing-complete. I can do what I did in python using Rule 110: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110

Recurssion is a set of rules in and of itself and as such exists as a framework. The simplest symbols we have of it are the line and circle through the point. Recurssion is a law.



Well DUUUUUUH.

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


Turtles all the way down!



And what YOU fail to recognize is that those observed symmetries are still subject to the mind-projection fallacy.

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

Mind projection, where the observer projects his/her perspective is a replication of the subject into the object and vice versa. It is grounded in symmetry because of this base law of recursion.

It's asymmetric because of the anthropic principle.

False, the human face is determined by the golden ratio in regards to qualities of beauty.

Male/female anatomies embody isomorphic symetry.

Basic rationality, intellectually, is grounded in the connection and separation of quantities and qualities akin to arithmetic.

Emotional states go through basic alternation between extremes.

Etc.

[Logik]

False, the human face is determined by the golden ratio in regards to qualities of beauty.

The golden ratio is the product of arithmetic. Arithmetic is man-made.

Male/female anatomies embody isomorphic symetry.

When folded along which axis?

I don't have tits. Women do.
I don't have a vagina. Women do.
I only have a heart on the left side.
My left testicle hangs lower than the right.

etc. etc. the symmetry you observe appears only after you ignore all the asymmetry

Basic rationality, intellectually, is grounded in the connection and separation of quantities and qualities akin to arithmetic.

And arithmetic is man-made

[Eodnhoj7]

False, the human face is determined by the golden ratio in regards to qualities of beauty.

The golden ratio is the product of arithmetic. Arithmetic is man-made.

False, as arithmetic is the connection and seperation of qualities, man kind can separate and create separation only by applying what already exists and acting as a median for it.

Male/female anatomies embody isomorphic symetry.

When folded along which axis? False, axis according to you is just a creation.

I don't have tits. Women do.

Men have small inactive tits (generally) women the inverse.


I don't have a vagina. Women do.
Inverse of penis. Phallic projection is observed inversely to vaginal receptive form.

I only have a heart on the left side.
Actually just pull up a diagram and it is more like "center".]


My left testicle hangs lower than the right.
Why are you always talking about your balls around me?

Still two and differential relative to two objects is always isomorphism.

etc. etc. the symmetry you observe appears only after you ignore all the asymmetry

Basic rationality, intellectually, is grounded in the connection and separation of quantities and qualities akin to arithmetic.

And arithmetic is man-made

Good, and man was created through x, therefore x is responsible for math through man.

[Logik]

Men have small inactive tits (generally) women the inverse.

Small<----->Big is an assymmetry

Inverse of penis. Phallic projection is observed inversely to vaginal receptive form.

Then the ass and mouth are also "phallic projections" e.g inverse receptive forms.

Actually just pull up a diagram and it is more like "center".

Sure, when you redefine "center" to mean "slightly to the left".

Why are you always talking about your balls around me?

You are always talking about your mind around me.

Still two and differential relative to two objects is always isomorphism.

As recently as two posts back you accused me of re-purposing words to suit myself.
Now look what you have done to "isomorphism".

Any mathematician would shriek at your gross mis-appropriation of the term.

Good, and man was created through x, therefore x is responsible for math through man.

And X is .... ?