## Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 5033
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Logik wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:07 pm
roydop wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:02 pm
Logik wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:07 am Implementation in Python

https://repl.it/@LogikLogicus/ShatteredIdentity
Counter-intuitive result

Code: Select all

``````A = A is True
A = A is True
A = A is True
A = A is True
Sanity prevails!

B = B is True
B = В is False
В = B is False
В = В is True
Insanity returns!
``````
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck - but it's not a duck!

Summon all your "experts" !!!! We have a situation here!
No matter how engaged a person's mind is following whatever system this is, a child could see it's a waste of energy. Why not just stay at A?
OK. Sticking to A: https://repl.it/@LogikLogicus/ShatteredIdentity

Code: Select all

``````A = A is True
A = A is True
A = A is True
A = A is True
Sanity prevails!

A = A is True
A = А is False
А = A is False
А = А is True
Insanity returns!``````
In English: things are NOT as they seem. Direct experience is an illusion.
BUT in english: things are EXACTLY as they ARE. Unfortunately though people like yourself are to BLINDED by YOUR own BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS to be ABLE to SEE and RECOGNIZE this FACT.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Age wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:32 pm
Logik wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:07 pm
roydop wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:02 pm

No matter how engaged a person's mind is following whatever system this is, a child could see it's a waste of energy. Why not just stay at A?
OK. Sticking to A: https://repl.it/@LogikLogicus/ShatteredIdentity

Code: Select all

``````A = A is True
A = A is True
A = A is True
A = A is True
Sanity prevails!

A = A is True
A = А is False
А = A is False
А = А is True
Insanity returns!``````
In English: things are NOT as they seem. Direct experience is an illusion.
BUT in english: things are EXACTLY as they ARE. Unfortunately though people like yourself are to BLINDED by YOUR own BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS to be ABLE to SEE and RECOGNIZE this FACT.
And his "beleif" is in a sophisticated language (python); hence why sophists are welcome.

Python requires a framework of symbols, grounded in aristotelian identity properties, and as such necessitates them.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:53 pm And his "beleif" is in a sophisticated language (python); hence why sophists are welcome.
All symbol-manipulation is computation. You are using symbol-manipulation to communicate with me right now.

You are computing the meaning of words.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:53 pm Python requires a framework of symbols, grounded in aristotelian identity properties, and as such necessitates them.
No. It doesn't. You are missing the forrest for the trees. The "symbols" are grounded in a physical signature.
The letter "A" is expressed as the ASCII code 65, which is expressed as the binary number 1000001
Which can be represented as an electrical wave using Manchester Encoding ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_code )

This video shows a computer which uses water droplets to represent its 'symbols': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5WodTppevo&t=73s

Aristotelian identity ONLY applies to ungrounded symbols. Thought.

If I say "Apple" and you interpret my words correctly - you have grounded my meaning. Because my words have an effect on physical reality.

Whether you have grounded my words in the way I intended them to be grounded... different topic
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Logik wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:22 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:53 pm And his "beleif" is in a sophisticated language (python); hence why sophists are welcome.
All symbol-manipulation is computation. You are using symbol-manipulation to communicate with me right now.

You are computing the meaning of words.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:53 pm Python requires a framework of symbols, grounded in aristotelian identity properties, and as such necessitates them.
No. It doesn't. You are missing the forrest for the trees. The "symbols" are grounded in a physical signature.
The letter "A" is expressed as the ASCII code 65, which is expressed as the binary number 1000001
Which can be represented as an electrical wave using Manchester Encoding ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_code )

This video shows a computer which uses water droplets to represent its symbols: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5WodTppevo&t=73s

Aristotelian identity ONLY applies to ungrounded symbols. Thought.

If I say "Apple" and you interpret my words correctly - you have grounded my meaning. Because my words have an effect on physical reality.

Whether you have grounded my words in the way I intended them to be grounded... different topic
False, because you require computation be subject to the same aristotelian identity properties. Computation itself, is strictly an off branche definition for "calculation", "thought", etc.

To compute the meaning of words is effectively to observe their connection/separation and this itself necessitates linearism...ie the word is directed away and/or toward a specific word. Computation is grounded in spatial abstractions, something a computer cannot do because "infinity" negates its operating status.

Even in trying to understand the nature of "computation", as it must be grounded in aristotelian identity properties, we are left with "connection" and "seperation" and its definition alone is subject to contradictions (from your stance) while effectively existing through a higher order logic that defines the process itself.

Save the sophism.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am False, because you require computation be subject to the same aristotelian identity properties.
Aristotle had absolutely no clue about quantum mechanics, wave particles or the concept of physical information.

So no. It's not subject to the same identity properties.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am Computation itself, is strictly an off branche definition for "calculation", "thought", etc.
Well duh! Computation is calculating the consequences of interactions. Causes and effects.

Computation is manipulation of MATTER. The process needs not take place in an actual mind/brain.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am Save the sophism.
You mistake science (that which is aligned with the LAWS OF PHYSICS) for sophistry. No hope for you.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Logik wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:47 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am False, because you require computation be subject to the same aristotelian identity properties.
Aristotle had absolutely no clue about quantum mechanics, wave particles or the concept of physical information.

So no. It's not subject to the same identity properties.

Quantum entanglement observes the same phenomenon can exist in multiple states. The first law of identity "P=P", where " P" exists in a dual state (minimum) and "=" effectively is void of meaning directly translates over to quantum theory as not just entirely logical but fundamentally is a philosophical prerequisite for it.

Second, the presocratics in observing solid,liquid,gas,plasma as earth/water/air/fire where the first to observe the wave function as these elements exist primarily through waves.

"Physical information"...lol, what does that even mean? Materialism?...that was observed long ago by the atomism as well as Aristotle through the actuality/potentiality dualism.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am Computation itself, is strictly an off branche definition for "calculation", "thought", etc.
Well duh! Computation is calculating the consequences of interactions. Causes and effects.

Computation is manipulation of MATTER. The process needs not take place in an actual mind/brain.

False, it is not limited to the manipulation of matter as cause and effect is defined through the same logic as computation itself.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am Save the sophism.
You mistake science (that which is aligned with the LAWS OF PHYSICS) for sophistry. No hope for you.

False, you have argued science before as fundamentally just made up. It strictly is the observation of relations within a specific framework with this framework being a projection of the observer(s) and as such always maintains a subjective element due to:

1. It being subject to infinite hypothesis from which one is chosen ("spontaneously exists" as choice is not understood within science except as subjective; hence chaotic.).

2. The relative awareness of the individuals creating the framework as the framework is an extension of subjective rational faculties.

3. Progression which negates prior facts in light of new frameworks of testing and interpretation and dually brings back old methods of thought...much like a cycle within the cycle of the methodology.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:35 am Quantum entanglement observes the same phenomenon can exist in multiple states.
Observe your equivocation. Multiple states? How many?

2 or 2^2000000000 ?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:35 am "Physical information"...lol, what does that even mean? Materialism?...that was observed long ago by the atomism as well as Aristotle through the actuality/potentiality dualism.
It means empiricism. It means that which Shannon described.
It means "the ability to tell the difference between two things".
It means the ability to categorize P = P into PA = PB.

It means the ability to draw linguistic distinctions based on empirical differences.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am False, it is not limited to the manipulation of matter as cause and effect is defined through the same logic as computation itself
Progression of time? That's not logic. None of the logic you use is temporal.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am False, you have argued science before as fundamentally just made up.
The output - yes. The method - no.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am It strictly is the observation of relations within a specific framework with this framework being a projection of the observer(s) and as such always maintains a subjective element due to:
Indeed. You are an observer. You are projecting your perspectives and model-dependent realism covers your angle.

You interpret through the model you create.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Logik wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:53 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:35 am Quantum entanglement observes the same phenomenon can exist in multiple states.
Observe your equivocation. Multiple states? How many?

2 or 2^2000000000 ?

Is the question even rational?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:35 am "Physical information"...lol, what does that even mean? Materialism?...that was observed long ago by the atomism as well as Aristotle through the actuality/potentiality dualism.
It means empiricism. It means that which Shannon described.
It means "the ability to tell the difference between two things".
It means the ability to categorize P = P into PA = PB.

It means the ability to draw linguistic distinctions based on empirical differences.
Empiricism is faulty in light of the senses required memory to interpret them since all empirical observations are past events.

Differentiatiom is strictly reduction which you argue as faulty relative to induction.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am False, it is not limited to the manipulation of matter as cause and effect is defined through the same logic as computation itself
Progression of time? That's not logic. None of the logic you use is temporal.

False, any logic which observes modality as well as finite qualities/quanties is temporal.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am False, you have argued science before as fundamentally just made up.
The output - yes. The method - no.

Actually the methology is made up as there are not just multiple methods but some discoveries occur spontaneously and are called science.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am It strictly is the observation of relations within a specific framework with this framework being a projection of the observer(s) and as such always maintains a subjective element due to:
Indeed. You are an observer. You are projecting your perspectives and model-dependent realism covers your angle.

You interpret through the model you create.

False, I cannot create spatial axioms without being subject to spatial axioms.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:30 am Is the question even rational?
Either it is or it isn't. How do you decide?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:35 am Empiricism is faulty in light of the senses required memory to interpret them since all empirical observations are past events.
They are passing events.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:35 am Differentiatiom is strictly reduction which you argue as faulty relative to induction.
Faulty? I said inferior. I use both reduction and induction.

Between the two I default to holism. Synthesis. Induction.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am False, any logic which observes modality as well as finite qualities/quanties is temporal.
Seems you are talking out of your depth now.
You don't understand the importance of sequencing/ordering.

There are systems in which:

A + B = C
B + A = D
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am Actually the methology is made up as there are not just multiple methods but some discoveries occur spontaneously and are called science
Falsification is uniform across all of them.

Colloquially: detecting bullshit.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Logik wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:45 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:30 am Is the question even rational?
Either it is or it isn't. How do you decide?

False dichotomy.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:35 am Empiricism is faulty in light of the senses required memory to interpret them since all empirical observations are past events.
They are passing events.

False, light waves observe all observed sights as past events.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:35 am Differentiatiom is strictly reduction which you argue as faulty relative to induction.
Faulty? I said inferior. I use both reduction and induction.

Between the two I default to holism. Synthesis. Induction.

False, then you would synthesize philosophy and programming.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am False, any logic which observes modality as well as finite qualities/quanties is temporal.
Seems you are talking out of your depth now.
You don't understand the importance of sequencing/ordering.

There are systems in which:

A + B = C
B + A = D

I already argued this a while back with the "distilling nature of cycles".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:39 am Actually the methology is made up as there are not just multiple methods but some discoveries occur spontaneously and are called science
Falsification is uniform across all of them.

Falsification is dependent upon a hypothesis, and there are I need infinite hypothesis...hence no real truly defined falsification from a finite perspective.

Colloquially: detecting bullshit.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:11 am Falsification is dependent upon a hypothesis
No, it's not. It's dependent on human experience and expectation. Falsification means "falls outside of expected norm".

If I drop a bowling ball from 1 meter height and it goes UP towards the sky....

That falls outside of expectations. That disagrees with your experience of how gravity works.

The bowling ball is not generating lift (like an airplane).
The bowling ball is not attached to any strings (no other force is being exerted on it).

When you dismiss all possible explanations for it going UP not DOWN you have achieved falsification.

Like I keep telling you: I don't know what a "law" is, but I know what a law isn't - optional.
If I can CHOOSE to ignore it, then it's not a law.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Logik wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:28 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:11 am Falsification is dependent upon a hypothesis
No, it's not. It's dependent on human experience and expectation. Falsification means "falls outside of expected norm".

If I drop a bowling ball from 1 meter height and it goes UP towards the sky....

That falls outside of expectations. That disagrees with your experience of how gravity works.

The bowling ball is not generating lift (like an airplane).
The bowling ball is not attached to any strings (no other force is being exerted on it).

When you dismiss all possible explanations for it going UP not DOWN you have achieved falsification.

Like I keep telling you: I don't know what a "law" is, but I know what a law isn't - optional.
If I can CHOOSE to ignore it, then it's not a law.
False, because an expected norm is a hypothetical state.

Actually dropping a ball and it going it up to the sky is a question of context. If I drop a ball in a plain taking a skydive, within the context of the plane (and the ball lifting) it is moving towards the sky.

The question of normality, is contextual by nature.

Second to know what a law "isn't" you must negate it through something that "is" as negatives are only proven through positives (ie something exists) as a negative is a deficiency in something.

You claim "relativity" but in all truth you just half-ass it...you no nothing about relativity.

Lazy....
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:02 pm Actually dropping a ball and it going it up to the sky is a question of context. If I drop a ball in a plain taking a skydive, within the context of the plane (and the ball lifting) it is moving towards the sky.
Broken context - terminal velocity is fixed. Bowling ball is more aerodynamic than you are.
It's still going down.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Logik wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:37 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:02 pm Actually dropping a ball and it going it up to the sky is a question of context. If I drop a ball in a plain taking a skydive, within the context of the plane (and the ball lifting) it is moving towards the sky.
Broken context - terminal velocity is fixed. Bowling ball is more aerodynamic than you are.
It's still going down.
False, up is dependent upon context. Expanding context is just a new context.

The bowling ball is falling away from the sky when viewing the context of it from outside the plane. From inside the plane the ball is moving up. Context.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Further demonstration the law of identity is broken (Sophists welcome)

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 10:32 pm False, up is dependent upon context. Expanding context is just a new context.

The bowling ball is falling away from the sky when viewing the context of it from outside the plane. From inside the plane the ball is moving up. Context.

You can't decide whether to accept or reject computation, can you?

From the Chomsky hierarchy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-free_grammar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-sensitive_grammar