P=P is a Contradiction

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:54 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:07 am

nope...I buy me a juicy red apple, write A on it with a marker, set on my kitchen table, and leave it to rot...a month later, that juicy red apple is dry & withered but the A is clearly visible...it's the same apple, only it's condition has changed
A phenomenon is inseperable from the conditions through which it exists given conditions are that which define a phenomenon. The "A" you write on a fresh apple differs from the "A" which exists on the rotten apples. "Conditionality" is merely a tautology of "being".
total malarky ('course, the Henry Quirk of tomorrow, who, accordin' to you, will not be me, might agree with you)
Everything changes, what you observe as a distinct phenomena is really a boundary composed of changes which in itself will change.

As to conditionality it is the expression of being itself where conditions are phenomena which define further phenomena thus exist as extensions of said phenomena.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by henry quirk »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:45 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:54 am
A phenomenon is inseperable from the conditions through which it exists given conditions are that which define a phenomenon. The "A" you write on a fresh apple differs from the "A" which exists on the rotten apples. "Conditionality" is merely a tautology of "being".
total malarky ('course, the Henry Quirk of tomorrow, who, accordin' to you, will not be me, might agree with you)
Everything changes, what you observe as a distinct phenomena is really a boundary composed of changes which in itself will change.

As to conditionality it is the expression of being itself where conditions are phenomena which define further phenomena thus exist as extensions of said phenomena.
it's the same apple (and no other); I'm the same Henry (and no other)
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:45 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:04 am

total malarky ('course, the Henry Quirk of tomorrow, who, accordin' to you, will not be me, might agree with you)
Everything changes, what you observe as a distinct phenomena is really a boundary composed of changes which in itself will change.

As to conditionality it is the expression of being itself where conditions are phenomena which define further phenomena thus exist as extensions of said phenomena.
it's the same apple (and no other); I'm the same Henry (and no other)
Both the apple and Henry change over time, even if the rate is small.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by Averroes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:57 pm I'm not at all "uneasy."
That's good to hear. I am glad that you are fine now. You got me a bit concerned about you when you ended the conversation so abruptly. We had a nice conversation going for sometime when you were so convinced in many of your posts that the sentential variable "P" in "¬(P∧¬P)" was not algebraic but then I showed you this:

Wikipedia:
  • An algebra (and there are many different ones), loosely defined, is a method by which a collection of symbols called variables together with some other symbols such as parentheses (, ) and some sub-set of symbols such as *, +, ~, &, ∨, =, ≡, ∧, ¬ are manipulated within a system of rules. These symbols, and well-formed strings of them, are said to represent objects, but in a specific algebraic system these objects do not have meanings. Thus work inside the algebra becomes an exercise in obeying certain laws (rules) of the algebra's syntax (symbol-formation) rather than in semantics (meaning) of the symbols. The meanings are to be found outside the algebra.

    For a well-formed sequence of symbols in the algebra —a formula— to have some usefulness outside the algebra the symbols are assigned meanings and eventually the variables are assigned values; then by a series of rules the formula is evaluated.

    When the values are restricted to just two and applied to the notion of simple sentences (e.g. spoken utterances or written assertions) linked by propositional connectives this whole algebraic system of symbols and rules and evaluation-methods is usually called the propositional calculus or the sentential calculus.

    While some of the familiar rules of arithmetic algebra continue to hold in the algebra of propositions (e.g. the commutative and associative laws for AND and OR), some do not (e.g. the distributive laws for AND, OR and NOT). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposi ... l_calculus

And suddenly you didn't want to converse with me anymore! But I am happy you got over it and are fine now.


Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:57 pmIf there was a relevance, or some sort of "win" in making the point here, I'd persist. But there's nothing much to be gained in anything I originally cared about.
Thank you for sharing your point of view. As for my part, persistence in seeking the truth, wherever it is found, is always relevant and everybody wins when the truth finally comes out and is distinguished from falsehood. As an example, recently I learned something very interesting in the most improbable of places and from most improbable person! I was discussing on another thread with Veritas and he unintentionally gave me a reference to a statistical study from reputed Western statistical agencies which showed that of the three Abrahamic religions, it was Christianity which was the most violent and Islam the most peaceful. I admit that I didn't know about these statistical studies, and thus a great opportunity was given to me to grow my knowledge base. But the knowledge didn't come without effort, as I had to go through pages of online material to find this gem. That for me was a clear cut win as my persistence in seeking the truth paid off. As the saying goes a quitter never wins and a winner never quits. There may finally be some truth to that!

PS: If you are interested in the statistical study that I mentioned previously, I can share it with you and others here so that you can benefit from this gem as well. I can even do better and quote it to ease your way directly to the interesting part.

Wikipedia:
  • Statistical academic studies have found that violent crime is less common among Muslim populations than among non-Muslim populations.[328][329][330][331] The average homicide rate in the Muslim world was 2.4 per 100,000, less than a third of non-Muslim countries which had an average homicide rate of 7.5 per 100,000.[332] The average homicide rate among the 19 most populous Muslim countries was 2.1 per 100,000, less than a fifth of the average homicide rate among the 19 most populous Christian countries which was 11.0 per 100,000, including 5.6 per 100,000 in the United States.[333] A negative correlation was found between a country's homicide rate and its percentage of Muslims, in contrast to a positive correlation found between a country's homicide rate and its percentage of Christians.[331] According to Professor Steven Fish: "The percentage of the society that is made up of Muslims is an extraordinarily good predictor of a country’s murder rate. More authoritarianism in Muslim countries does not account for the difference. I have found that controlling for political regime in statistical analysis does not change the findings. More Muslims, less homicide."[329][334] Professor Jerome L. Neapolitan compared low crime rates in Islamic countries to low crime in Japan, comparing the role of Islam to that of Japan's Shinto and Buddhist traditions in fostering cultures emphasizing the importance of community and social obligation, contributing to less criminal behaviour than other nations.[330]

    A statistical textual analysis of the Qur'an and Bible conducted by software engineer Tom Anderson in 2016, using the Odin Text analytics software, found that violence is less frequent in the Qur'an than in the Bible. According to Anderson: "Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%), but the Old Testament clearly leads—more than twice that of the Quran—in mentions of destruction and killing (5.3%)."

    Gallup and Pew polls
    Polls have found Muslim-Americans to report less violent views than any other religious group in America. 89% of Muslim-Americans claimed that the killing of civilians is never justified, compared to 71% of Catholics and Protestants, 75% of Jews, and 76% of atheists and non-religious groups. When Gallup asked if it is justifiable for the military to kill civilians, the percentage of people who said it is sometimes justifiable were 21% among Muslims, 58% among Protestants and Catholics, 52% among Jews, and 43% among atheists.[336] Gallup in 2008 found that Palestinians held generally less violent views than Israelis, with up to 14% of Palestinians and up to 52% of Israelis saying it is sometimes justifiable to kill civilians.

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:57 pmHave a nice day.
Have a nice day too.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by Immanuel Can »

Averroes wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 8:04 am of the three Abrahamic religions, it was Christianity which was the most violent and Islam the most peaceful.
Interesting that you say you found something to suggest that. The completely secular, academic source, the Encyclopedia of War actually has all the statistics in it, the fatalities in particular. It shows that while religion is not nearly so conducive to wars as people like to think, comprising only, at most, around 7% of all wars in history, half of those are Islamic. The other 3.5% include all other religions. And if, from that 3.5% you take out the Catholics, then the remainder is vanishingly small.

Good to get some real statistics into these discussions.

But now, this is of no consequence in a thread about the law of identity, so we should go back to topic here. There is a thread for what you want to talk about, and it's viewtopic.php?f=11&t=30042. So you should take it there.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by Averroes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:07 pm
Averroes wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 8:04 am of the three Abrahamic religions, it was Christianity which was the most violent and Islam the most peaceful.
Interesting that you say you found something to suggest that. The completely secular, academic source, the Encyclopedia of War actually has all the statistics in it, the fatalities in particular.


I would not have described those books you mentioned as being "completely secular" because I don't think they are. I actually have the complete set of three volumes of the Encyclopedia of War by Charles Philips and Alan Axelrod. And I have the list of contributors to that work and among them is a certain Edward Countryman. Edward Countryman is a Professor in the Clements Department of History at Southern Methodist University. A Methodist institution is not what I would ever have described as "completely secular"! They are Christians or to be a bit more specific, Protestants.

And another contributor, Geoffrey Parker who in 1992 the king of Spain made him a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Isabella the Catholic in recognition of his work on Spanish history. A Knight of a Catholic order is certainly not what I would describe as "completely secular"! On top of that Isabella the Catholic was barbaric and savage, barely human, who tortured and expelled native Spaniards from their lands just because they were Muslims and Jews.

Most of the fatalities of the wars referred in the book are unknown and of the small number that are known, most are highly disputed among western historians themselves. But anyway, if this is your history book, then let us dive in it and see what it contains.

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:07 pm It shows that while religion is not nearly so conducive to wars as people like to think, comprising only, at most, around 7% of all wars in history, half of those are Islamic. The other 3.5% include all other religions. And if, from that 3.5% you take out the Catholics, then the remainder is vanishingly small.
That's not true. Nowhere in the whole three volumes are these statistics mentioned! The only religious wars under the entries "Religion Wars" are between Catholics and Protestants (Huguenots). Let me quote all these Religion Wars in the order they are mentioned:

Religion, First War of (1562–1563)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots (with English aid) in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Huguenots sought religious freedom.
OUTCOME: A degree of tolerance was granted to the Huguenots.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Catholics, 23,000; Huguenots, 15,000 (including 3,000 English troops)
CASUALTIES: Military losses were about 4,000 killed on each side; Huguenot civilian losses were about 3,000 killed.
TREATIES: Peace of Amboise (March 1563)

Religion, Second War of (1567–1568)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Huguenots sought religious freedom.
OUTCOME: A degree of tolerance was granted to the Huguenots.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: 16,000 French (Catholics); 3,500 Huguenots
CASUALTIES: Numbers unknown, but heavy on both sides
TREATIES: Peace of Longjumeau (March 1568)

Religion, Third War of (1568–1570)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Huguenots sought religious freedom.
OUTCOME: A degree of tolerance was granted to the Huguenots.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Catholics, 18,000; Huguenots, 16,500
CASUALTIES: Catholics, 1,000 killed or wounded; Huguenots, 8,400 killed or wounded
TREATIES: Peace of St. Germain, August 8, 1570

Religion, Fourth War of (1572–1573)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Huguenots sought religious freedom.
OUTCOME: A degree of tolerance was granted to the Huguenots, and a group of moderate Catholics formed a new political party known as the Politiques.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Unknown
CASUALTIES: Unknown
TREATIES: None

Religion, Fifth War of (1575–1576)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Henry, duc de Guise; and his Royalist faction wanted to take the French throne away from Henry III, who was more tolerant of religious differences than they. OUTCOME: The Royalist Catholics under Henry, duke de Guise, formed a Holy League with King Philip of Spain to secure the French throne for the Catholics.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Unknown
CASUALTIES: Unknown
TREATIES: Peace of Mousieur, May 5, 1576

Religion, Sixth and Seventh Wars of (1576–1577, 1580)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Huguenots sought religious freedom.
OUTCOME: After subduing the Protestants, Henry III wavered in his determination to carry out the terms of the Peace of Bergerac.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Unknown
CASUALTIES: Unknown
TREATIES: Peace of Bergerac (1577)

Religion, Eighth War of (1585–1589)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Catholic Royalists in France wanted to ensure that one of their numbers would be named successor to the childless Henry III.
OUTCOME: King Henry named the Protestant leader Henry of Navarre as his successor. APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Catholics, 8,700+; Huguenots, 6,500
CASUALTIES: Catholics, 3,400 killed; Huguenots, 200 killed
TREATIES: None

Religion, Ninth War of (1589–1598)
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Catholics vs. Huguenots in France
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): France
DECLARATION: None MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Protestants in France sought religious freedom.
OUTCOME: Henry III, although he had returned to the Catholic faith, issued the Edict of Nantes, which proclaimed religious freedom for French Protestants.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Catholics, 26,000; Huguenots, 20,000
CASUALTIES: Catholics, 13,550 killed or wounded; Huguenots, 12,040 killed or wounded
TREATIES: Edict of Nantes (1598)


That's it! There is no mention of the alleged statistics you posted. You got the wrong information. What is shown in the book is that 100% of the religion wars listed as such in the book are between the belligerent and violent Protestants and Catholics. That's why one needs to verify the information that comes ones way, otherwise one can end up with embarrassing mistakes and then be forced to quit towards a shameful exit.

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:07 pm Good to get some real statistics into these discussions.
Thank you for the compliment! My Creator, the Almighty is to be praised always for He gave us life and He sustains our life. And my Creator,  the Almighty is the One Who guides to the truth. He is the One Whose protection is always sought and He is the One Who protects me from being an habitual shameful quitter.

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:07 pm But now, this is of no consequence in a thread about the law of identity, so we should go back to topic here. There is a thread for what you want to talk about, and it's viewtopic.php?f=11&t=30042. So you should take it there.
Thank you for mentioning this. This is the thread I was talking about in my previous post as being the most improbable of places of finding the gem I shared with you. And it was Veritas who provided the link; the most improbable person!

Much like you did before in a PS where you made a big mistake by saying that the sentential variable "P" was not mathematical; I too was just mentioning this as an afterthought to the main point I was expressing in my previous post. You were saying that when the going gets tough for you, you quit. And I responded by saying that God willing, I always persist in seeking the truth whatever the obstacles on the way and this has the result that often I find beautiful gems on the way. To illustrate the latter, I then quoted the following gem to show you and others who are reading this, just in case you might be curious to know. It was not very important to our discussion but you took it to heart and now we are here because of that.

Wikipedia:
  • Statistical academic studies have found that violent crime is less common among Muslim populations than among non-Muslim populations.[328][329][330][331] The average homicide rate in the Muslim world was 2.4 per 100,000, less than a third of non-Muslim countries which had an average homicide rate of 7.5 per 100,000.[332] The average homicide rate among the 19 most populous Muslim countries was 2.1 per 100,000, less than a fifth of the average homicide rate among the 19 most populous Christian countries which was 11.0 per 100,000, including 5.6 per 100,000 in the United States.[333] A negative correlation was found between a country's homicide rate and its percentage of Muslims, in contrast to a positive correlation found between a country's homicide rate and its percentage of Christians.[331] According to Professor Steven Fish: "The percentage of the society that is made up of Muslims is an extraordinarily good predictor of a country’s murder rate. More authoritarianism in Muslim countries does not account for the difference. I have found that controlling for political regime in statistical analysis does not change the findings. More Muslims, less homicide."[329][334] Professor Jerome L. Neapolitan compared low crime rates in Islamic countries to low crime in Japan, comparing the role of Islam to that of Japan's Shinto and Buddhist traditions in fostering cultures emphasizing the importance of community and social obligation, contributing to less criminal behaviour than other nations.[330]

    A statistical textual analysis of the Qur'an and Bible conducted by software engineer Tom Anderson in 2016, using the Odin Text analytics software, found that violence is less frequent in the Qur'an than in the Bible. According to Anderson: "Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%), but the Old Testament clearly leads—more than twice that of the Quran—in mentions of destruction and killing (5.3%)."

    Gallup and Pew polls
    Polls have found Muslim-Americans to report less violent views than any other religious group in America. 89% of Muslim-Americans claimed that the killing of civilians is never justified, compared to 71% of Catholics and Protestants, 75% of Jews, and 76% of atheists and non-religious groups. When Gallup asked if it is justifiable for the military to kill civilians, the percentage of people who said it is sometimes justifiable were 21% among Muslims, 58% among Protestants and Catholics, 52% among Jews, and 43% among atheists.[336] Gallup in 2008 found that Palestinians held generally less violent views than Israelis, with up to 14% of Palestinians and up to 52% of Israelis saying it is sometimes justifiable to kill civilians.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by Immanuel Can »

Averroes wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:59 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:07 pm But now, this is of no consequence in a thread about the law of identity, so we should go back to topic here. There is a thread for what you want to talk about, and it's viewtopic.php?f=11&t=30042. So you should take it there.
Thank you for mentioning this.[/b]
Out of courtesy to others, you should be using it.

Thanks.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by henry quirk »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:10 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:45 am
Everything changes, what you observe as a distinct phenomena is really a boundary composed of changes which in itself will change.

As to conditionality it is the expression of being itself where conditions are phenomena which define further phenomena thus exist as extensions of said phenomena.
it's the same apple (and no other); I'm the same Henry (and no other)
Both the apple and Henry change over time, even if the rate is small.
a change in status is not synonymous with a change in identity
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:24 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:10 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:59 am

it's the same apple (and no other); I'm the same Henry (and no other)
Both the apple and Henry change over time, even if the rate is small.
a change in status is not synonymous with a change in identity
Status is part of identity as it is that which defines identity.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by henry quirk »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:55 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:24 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:10 am
Both the apple and Henry change over time, even if the rate is small.
a change in status is not synonymous with a change in identity
Status is part of identity as it is that which defines identity.
okay...the shiny, juicy apple is now a withered, dry apple...but it's still the same goddamn apple...its condition has changed but its identity is still the same...that apple is that apple and is no other apple

you might have a point if you were talkin' about a river, but with the apple, nope, you're wrong
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:57 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:55 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:24 pm

a change in status is not synonymous with a change in identity
Status is part of identity as it is that which defines identity.
okay...the shiny, juicy apple is now a withered, dry apple...but it's still the same goddamn apple...its condition has changed but its identity is still the same...that apple is that apple and is no other apple

you might have a point if you were talkin' about a river, but with the apple, nope, you're wrong
Condition is identity.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by Averroes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:36 pm
Averroes wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:59 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:07 pm But now, this is of no consequence in a thread about the law of identity, so we should go back to topic here. There is a thread for what you want to talk about, and it's viewtopic.php?f=11&t=30042. So you should take it there.
Thank you for mentioning this.[/b]
Out of courtesy to others, you should be using it.

Thanks.
It's the same to me where you want to reply. As long as you don't suddenly quit, I consider myself very fortunate!!

To others who have been reading our discussion, Immanuel Can tranfered his reply to another thread, and I replied to him here:viewtopic.php?p=474855#p474855
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by henry quirk »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:44 am
henry quirk wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:57 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:55 pm

Status is part of identity as it is that which defines identity.
okay...the shiny, juicy apple is now a withered, dry apple...but it's still the same goddamn apple...its condition has changed but its identity is still the same...that apple is that apple and is no other apple

you might have a point if you were talkin' about a river, but with the apple, nope, you're wrong
Condition is identity.
nope
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:28 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:44 am
henry quirk wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:57 pm

okay...the shiny, juicy apple is now a withered, dry apple...but it's still the same goddamn apple...its condition has changed but its identity is still the same...that apple is that apple and is no other apple

you might have a point if you were talkin' about a river, but with the apple, nope, you're wrong
Condition is identity.
nope
Yes.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: P=P is a Contradiction

Post by henry quirk »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:51 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:28 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:44 am

Condition is identity.
nope
Yes.
nope
Post Reply