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

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Logik wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:32 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:52 pm False, I am arguing the wheel is the foundation of all things. You claim all is chaos...then create more and more complex systems effectively replicating it...I am just point out your life is circular. There is no fool like an old fool.
What?

I all my claims have been about logic (Turing machines/Lambda calculus) being the foundation of human thought.

Human thought created the wheel...
And the wheel created thought as all thoughts are circular. We are left with mind being spatial, with space being mind. Both are one and the same. The nature of assumption requires an empty mind; pure space that forms the material world around us.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Post by Logik »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:41 pm And the wheel created thought as all thoughts are circular.
You have mistaken recursion for circularity.

No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.

Applies to thought also.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Logik wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:24 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:41 pm And the wheel created thought as all thoughts are circular.
You have mistaken recursion for circularity.

No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.

Applies to thought also.
False, I already argue that not only all lines exist as circles (point, line, circle are one in the same) but the repitition of a phenomena is a cycling of itself through time.

A leads to B with B being a variation of A existing through A.
A is effectively directed through itself under a constant renewal as an adaption to chaos.
B is A adapting to Chaos through a self-referentiality.
User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

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

Post by Speakpigeon »

Logik wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:47 pm Too bad you can't tell the difference between acute pain, chronic pain, bone pain, soft tissue pain, muscle pain, nerve pain, referred pain, phantom pain (and all the other pain-categories that I am leaving out).
???
Sorry, this is definitely too painful.
EB
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Post by Logik »

Speakpigeon wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:55 pm
Logik wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:47 pm Too bad you can't tell the difference between acute pain, chronic pain, bone pain, soft tissue pain, muscle pain, nerve pain, referred pain, phantom pain (and all the other pain-categories that I am leaving out).
???
Sorry, this is definitely too painful.
EB
If I were your doctor I'd say: my hands are tied until you describe your pain.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

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

Post by Arising_uk »

Logik,
Just a thought about your thoughts about how the law of identity is broken.

It doesn't seem to be broken by types as it appears to be in full use within a type, it's just across types that you can make it appear broken but given that across types there would be two different things then it appears to be doing it's job correctly?
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Post by Logik »

Arising_uk wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:58 am Logik,
Just a thought about your thoughts about how the law of identity is broken.

It doesn't seem to be broken by types as it appears to be in full use within a type, it's just across types that you can make it appear broken but given that across types there would be two different things then it appears to be doing it's job correctly?
Let me rephrase it in a way that doesn't trigger people.

The "law" if identity is just an axiom. It's not universal, and it's not even necessary for logic to function.

Here is the law being unnecessary, not only within a type, but within the same object, and even by removing the id() function which Python provides by default. And an example where things of the same time are sometimes "the same" as themselves and sometimes not.

https://repl.it/repls/DeliciousStickyPostscript

The statement "a thing is the same as itself" is impossible to interpret as true or false until one defines that is meant by "sameness". As far as I am concerned it's undecidable. It's meaningless. I can't even fathom why somebody would utter it in the real world.

To be fair - the above is not quite true. I can fathom "sameness". Bitwise or qubitwise identity.
Bit for bit; or qubit for qubit a thing is identical with another thing.

So lets suppose that we have a function that can magically freeze time and compare any two objects bit; or qubut-wise.

How do you compare something to itself?

Identity is not fundamental/foundational to logic. That is it.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Logik wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:07 am
Arising_uk wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:58 am Logik,
Just a thought about your thoughts about how the law of identity is broken.

It doesn't seem to be broken by types as it appears to be in full use within a type, it's just across types that you can make it appear broken but given that across types there would be two different things then it appears to be doing it's job correctly?
Let me rephrase it in a way that doesn't trigger people.

The "law" if identity is just an axiom. It's not universal, and it's not even necessary for logic to function.

Here is the law being unnecessary, not only within a type, but within the same object, and even by removing the id() function which Python provides by default. And an example where things of the same time are sometimes "the same" as themselves and sometimes not.

https://repl.it/repls/DeliciousStickyPostscript

The statement "a thing is the same as itself" is impossible to interpret as true or false until one defines that is meant by "sameness". As far as I am concerned it's undecidable. It's meaningless. I can't even fathom why somebody would utter it in the real world.

To be fair - the above is not quite true. I can fathom "sameness". Bitwise or qubitwise identity.
Bit for bit; or qubit for qubit a thing is identical with another thing.

So lets suppose that we have a function that can magically freeze time and compare any two objects bit; or qubut-wise.

How do you compare something to itself?

Identity is not fundamental/foundational to logic. That is it.
The assumptive nature of axioms is "universal" and as such all laws of identity are grounded in the properties of the "axiom" as fundamentally being an identity property in and of itself.

All laws are axioms, all axioms are identity properties.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Post by Logik »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:43 pm The assumptive nature of axioms is "universal" and as such all laws of identity are grounded in the properties of the "axiom" as fundamentally being an identity property in and of itself.

All laws are axioms, all axioms are identity properties.
Empirically - this is nonsense. If I were to say that X has the same mass as Y. There is a measurement I can perform to verify/falsify the hypothesis. Use a scale. Count atoms. There is a process by which I could actually verify the claim within some degree of precision and certainty.

If I were to say I am the same as myself what measurement would I take in practice to confirm this claim?
How exactly would I compare myself to myself?

The utterance "I am the same as myself" is nonsensical.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Logik wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:08 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:43 pm The assumptive nature of axioms is "universal" and as such all laws of identity are grounded in the properties of the "axiom" as fundamentally being an identity property in and of itself.

All laws are axioms, all axioms are identity properties.
Empirically - this is nonsense. If I were to say that X has the same mass as Y. There is a measurement I can perform to verify/falsify the hypothesis. Use a scale. Count atoms. There is a process by which I could actually verify the claim within some degree of precision and certainty.

If I were to say I am the same as myself what measurement would I take in practice to confirm this claim?
How exactly would I compare myself to myself?

The utterance "I am the same as myself" is nonsensical.
False as the measurement process, while existing through empirical means, is dependent upon abstractions. Even if the hypothesis is falsified, in light of further hypothesis, they can again stem to infinity considering all hypothesis are interpretative in nature and as such exist through a continuum. One hypothesis fails, another takes its place, and the process of falsification never can really exist as proof in itself considering its continous nature does not really give grounds for it as being a strictly "rational" method in and of itself but rather a continuum.

However this continuous nature of "falsification" requires it to fundamentally negate any grounds for allowing a finite truth to exist without contradiction considering you are requiring an infinite process of negation/falsification to create "finite" interpretations.

Second your obsession with "falsification" is pathetic as it can be falsified on its own terms. To put it simply the process of falsification can go on ad-infinitum for any phenomenon and as such is neither empirical and is subject to canceling itself out given due course. It is a process of divergence, the grounding of your "creativity", which has been address multiple times in the respect to the prime triad where all axiom effectively exist by projecting to further axioms; hence are divergent by nature.

Third comparing the self to the self fundamentally requires a localization of the self, or a perception of the self or strictly just a perception (ie a memory of one's actions or an experience), compared relative to another localization of the self (ie a memory or action or experience). This requires an absence of memory where two perceivable selves appear separate in such a manner where the "continuum" of self is fundamentallybroken by "void" (ie the absence of memory). In these respects this "void" acts as the foundation for a percieved "multitude" of selfs and as such is the grounding for "finiteness" or "parts" which sets the grounds for what we observe as "finite".

This "finiteness" is grounding in a process of "voiding" (hence the falsification you require) that is a process of divergence in and of itself and as such constitutes effectively "nothing". Your ultrafinite stance is strictly just a continual movement towards "nothingness" or a percieved multiplicity of parts which accounts for the complexity you place such high emphasis on which ironically is just the chaos you seek to avoid but actually create.

This is considering chaos is grounded in complexity under "multiplicity" where any sense of "unity" which is conducive to order (considering all order is grounded logically and intuitively in unity or holism) is strictly approximated precisely because "void" causes a perceivable separation. Chaos is a process of divergence grounded in the voiding of a phenomenon into multiple phenomenon (such as the voiding of one hypothesis results in further hypothesis ad-infinitum).
Post Reply