## P = -P

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6880
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### P = -P

P and -P are both symmetrical opposites to eachother thus necessitating a middle term. An empty glass and a full glass both show the glass form as constant. The empty space is in the shape of the glass. The material in the glass shows the shape of the glass. In both cases the shape of the glass is present.

For further example a horse being present results in the form of the horse in contrast to something else, such as a field. The horse not being present shows an emptiness in the contrast in the form of the horse. The absence of grazing shows a distinction within the form of the field compared to if the horse was grazing. The horse as absent shows an absence of effects within the field thus showing an absence of the horse.
The horse being present and the horse not being present both shows the form of the horse.

P=-P thus results in a middle term of P being present. The mediation of P can be expressed further where P=-P can be expressed as +P=-P where P is the underlying recursive term which underlies "+ = -". P thus allows both "+" and "-" to equivocate through a center term which repeats. P is thus the intrinsic form which underlies both +P and -P.

Another example of P=-P can be observed with a glass with some water in it. Is the glass half empty or half full? It is empty as half empty, full as half full. It is both thus the glass is both full and empty of water. What allows these opposites to equivocate is the middle form of the glass itself.
alan1000
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:03 am

### Re: P = -P

Yesterday I looked at the field and the horse was there. Today I looked and it wasn't there. So in my conscious recollection it is both there and not there and, according to you, there's also a middle term by which it is neither there nor not-there, but something in between, assuming, of course, that there is a middle not-ness and not-not-ness which may or may not be synonymous with not not-ness, but which can be rationalised (or not) within a hermeneutic of the existential (or non-existential) and metaphysical (or non-metaphysical) deconstructionist crises which perennially face (or may not face) human perceptions with relation to being and not-being, in Sartrean terms, in which case tomorrow is either Tuesday or not-Tuesday? Or something in between?

Have I understood the question correctly? Or not?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6880
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: P = -P

alan1000 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:54 pm Yesterday I looked at the field and the horse was there. Today I looked and it wasn't there. So in my conscious recollection it is both there and not there and, according to you, there's also a middle term by which it is neither there nor not-there, but something in between, assuming, of course, that there is a middle not-ness and not-not-ness which may or may not be synonymous with not not-ness, but which can be rationalised (or not) within a hermeneutic of the existential (or non-existential) and metaphysical (or non-metaphysical) deconstructionist crises which perennially face (or may not face) human perceptions with relation to being and not-being, in Sartrean terms, in which case tomorrow is either Tuesday or not-Tuesday? Or something in between?

Have I understood the question correctly? Or not?
The horse being there or not there necessitates the horse as the middle term. The horse as present affects the field. The horse as not present affects the field. Whether it is present or not the horse affects the field.
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3853
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

### Re: P = -P

alan1000 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:54 pm Yesterday I looked at the field and the horse was there. Today I looked and it wasn't there.
The idea with a variable like P, or even a non-variable term like "cat" or "Joe" in the context of a logical argument, is that (at least in lieu of explicit comments otherwise) each occurrence has to refer to the same thing, at the same time, in the same respect, etc. Yesterday and today are not the same time. If we're using the variable or term to refer to something different without making this explicit, we're committing the fallacy of equivocation.
Skepdick
Posts: 8023
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: P = -P

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:46 am The idea with a variable like P, or even a non-variable term like "cat" or "Joe" in the context of a logical argument, is that (at least in lieu of explicit comments otherwise) each occurrence has to refer to the same thing, at the same time, in the same respect, etc. Yesterday and today are not the same time. If we're using the variable or term to refer to something different without making this explicit, we're committing the fallacy of equivocation.
You are equivocating sameness with identity.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6880
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: P = -P

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:46 am
alan1000 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:54 pm Yesterday I looked at the field and the horse was there. Today I looked and it wasn't there.
The idea with a variable like P, or even a non-variable term like "cat" or "Joe" in the context of a logical argument, is that (at least in lieu of explicit comments otherwise) each occurrence has to refer to the same thing, at the same time, in the same respect, etc. Yesterday and today are not the same time. If we're using the variable or term to refer to something different without making this explicit, we're committing the fallacy of equivocation.
How can one thing be observed in the same time and same respect without having multiple times and respects? Multiplicity is differentiation. The 1 which equates to 1 may equate to a horse while the other 1 equates to a jet. Equivocation results in differentiation.

At best identity is strictly 1 not 1=1.
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3853
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

### Re: P = -P

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:41 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:46 am
alan1000 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:54 pm Yesterday I looked at the field and the horse was there. Today I looked and it wasn't there.
The idea with a variable like P, or even a non-variable term like "cat" or "Joe" in the context of a logical argument, is that (at least in lieu of explicit comments otherwise) each occurrence has to refer to the same thing, at the same time, in the same respect, etc. Yesterday and today are not the same time. If we're using the variable or term to refer to something different without making this explicit, we're committing the fallacy of equivocation.
How can one thing be observed in the same time and same respect without having multiple times and respects? Multiplicity is differentiation. The 1 which equates to 1 may equate to a horse while the other 1 equates to a jet. Equivocation results in differentiation.

At best identity is strictly 1 not 1=1.
Reference, not observation.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6880
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: P = -P

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:14 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:41 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:46 am

The idea with a variable like P, or even a non-variable term like "cat" or "Joe" in the context of a logical argument, is that (at least in lieu of explicit comments otherwise) each occurrence has to refer to the same thing, at the same time, in the same respect, etc. Yesterday and today are not the same time. If we're using the variable or term to refer to something different without making this explicit, we're committing the fallacy of equivocation.
How can one thing be observed in the same time and same respect without having multiple times and respects? Multiplicity is differentiation. The 1 which equates to 1 may equate to a horse while the other 1 equates to a jet. Equivocation results in differentiation.

At best identity is strictly 1 not 1=1.
Reference, not observation.
Referencing is the act of pointing, pointing is change from one phenomenon to another, changes are observed.
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3853
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

### Re: P = -P

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:30 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:14 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:41 pm

How can one thing be observed in the same time and same respect without having multiple times and respects? Multiplicity is differentiation. The 1 which equates to 1 may equate to a horse while the other 1 equates to a jet. Equivocation results in differentiation.

At best identity is strictly 1 not 1=1.
Reference, not observation.
Referencing is the act of pointing, pointing is change from one phenomenon to another, changes are observed.
Not the act of referencing, but what's being referenced.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6880
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: P = -P

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:14 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:30 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:14 am

Reference, not observation.
Referencing is the act of pointing, pointing is change from one phenomenon to another, changes are observed.
Not the act of referencing, but what's being referenced.
To reference something is to have one phenomenon point to another.
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3853
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

### Re: P = -P

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:50 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:14 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:30 am

Referencing is the act of pointing, pointing is change from one phenomenon to another, changes are observed.
Not the act of referencing, but what's being referenced.
To reference something is to have one phenomenon point to another.
And that has what to do with what you're responding to?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6880
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: P = -P

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:09 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:50 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:14 pm
Not the act of referencing, but what's being referenced.
To reference something is to have one phenomenon point to another.
And that has what to do with what you're responding to?
Identity is observed through the pointer. 1 exists as it's own identity, not 1=1. It exists as it's own identity because it is a pointer. That which points has it's own identity.
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3853
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

### Re: P = -P

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:52 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:09 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:50 pm

To reference something is to have one phenomenon point to another.
And that has what to do with what you're responding to?
Identity is observed through the pointer. 1 exists as it's own identity, not 1=1. It exists as it's own identity because it is a pointer. That which points has it's own identity.
That has nothing at all to do with "Reference, not observation. Not the act of referencing, but what's being referenced."
Skepdick
Posts: 8023
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: P = -P

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:30 am That has nothing at all to do with "Reference, not observation. Not the act of referencing, but what's being referenced."
What is "being referenced" by the act of referencing performed by expressing the word "red"?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6880
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: P = -P

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:30 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:52 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:09 am

And that has what to do with what you're responding to?
Identity is observed through the pointer. 1 exists as it's own identity, not 1=1. It exists as it's own identity because it is a pointer. That which points has it's own identity.
That has nothing at all to do with "Reference, not observation. Not the act of referencing, but what's being referenced."
Referencing is pointing, pointing is observation, thus referencing is observation. That which is being pointed too, ie referenced, is that which is being observed.