P=/=P

[Terrapin Station]

And what is "sameness"

Identity. Literally the same thing.

1. And what determines the two terms being the same

They're literally the same. So two instances of "cat," or "P" or whatever it might be.

Thus the same thing is expressed through a multitude of words therefore resulting in equivocation.

If "identity" results in "sameness" and "sameness" results in "identity" then a circular reasoning occurs.

Saying two instances of "P" or "Cat" to occur necessitates the instances as seperate thus different.

Not one thing you typed makes any sense in context here.

[Terrapin Station]

Actually it says one thing under a multitude of expressions.

Quote that bit then.

[Eodnhoj7]

Identity. Literally the same thing.



They're literally the same. So two instances of "cat," or "P" or whatever it might be.

Thus the same thing is expressed through a multitude of words therefore resulting in equivocation.

If "identity" results in "sameness" and "sameness" results in "identity" then a circular reasoning occurs.

Saying two instances of "P" or "Cat" to occur necessitates the instances as seperate thus different.

Not one thing you typed makes any sense in context here.

1. You cannot have two instances of the same thing without there being a difference in the manifestation of the circumstances, multiple instances result in a difference within the instances.

2. Identity being defined by sameness and sameness being defined by identity is circular reasoning.

3. One particular word expressed through a multitude of other seemingly different words results in equivocation.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually it says one thing under a multitude of expressions.

Quote that bit then.

Equivocation can be expressed under a multitude of different words.

[Terrapin Station]

1. You cannot have two instances of the same thing without there being a difference in the manifestation of the circumstances, multiple instances result in a difference within the instances.

You understand that the different instances are of the same term, right? For example, if we write "cat," and then write "cat" again. The reference of "cat" has to be the same thing in both cases. So in other words, there's just one cat that the term "cat" is "pointing" to, and every occurrence of the term "cat" has to point at that same cat, in the same respect, at the same time, etc.

[Terrapin Station]

Just fyi, since I didn't make this explicit earlier and I realize it might not be intuitively obvious, the convention is that when we put a term in quotation marks, we're referring to the term as a term--as a word we can write or say. When we leave off the quotation marks, we're referring to the thing, not the term.

Hence "cat" has three letters and starts with a "c," but a cat doesn't. A cat drinks milk and meows and so on. This is also known as the use/mention distinction. "Cat" is the mention side and a cat is the use side.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. You cannot have two instances of the same thing without there being a difference in the manifestation of the circumstances, multiple instances result in a difference within the instances.

You understand that the different instances are of the same term, right? For example, if we write "cat," and then write "cat" again. The reference of "cat" has to be the same thing in both cases. So in other words, there's just one cat that the term "cat" is "pointing" to, and every occurrence of the term "cat" has to point at that same cat, in the same respect, at the same time, etc.

To refer to the same cat under multiple times is to observe the same cat under different contexts thus necessitating referencing of the cat one time as different under another time.

The "cat = cat" observes "cat" expressed under different contexts thus not the same cat is observed.

[Eodnhoj7]

Just fyi, since I didn't make this explicit earlier and I realize it might not be intuitively obvious, the convention is that when we put a term in quotation marks, we're referring to the term as a term--as a word we can write or say. When we leave off the quotation marks, we're referring to the thing, not the term.

Hence "cat" has three letters and starts with a "c," but a cat doesn't. A cat drinks milk and meows and so on. This is also known as the use/mention distinction. "Cat" is the mention side and a cat is the use side.

Mentioning a term is the use of the term. To mention something is to use it.

[Terrapin Station]

To refer to the same cat under multiple times is to observe the same cat under different contexts

No! That's just what we're avoiding. Each occurrence of the term MUST refer to exactly the same thing, in exactly the same respect, at exactly the same time, etc.

[Eodnhoj7]

To refer to the same cat under multiple times is to observe the same cat under different contexts

No! That's just what we're avoiding. Each occurrence of the term MUST refer to exactly the same thing, in exactly the same respect, at exactly the same time, etc.

The occurence of the same thing, under the same respect and at the same time cannot be observed under multiple instances as the instances necessitate a seperation. P=P necessitates multiple instances of the same thing, thus each observation is a different context.

At best identity should be described simply as "P", not "P=P".

[Terrapin Station]

Just fyi, since I didn't make this explicit earlier and I realize it might not be intuitively obvious, the convention is that when we put a term in quotation marks, we're referring to the term as a term--as a word we can write or say. When we leave off the quotation marks, we're referring to the thing, not the term.

Hence "cat" has three letters and starts with a "c," but a cat doesn't. A cat drinks milk and meows and so on. This is also known as the use/mention distinction. "Cat" is the mention side and a cat is the use side.

Mentioning a term is the use of the term. To mention something is to use it.

It has nothing to do with general senses of those terms. "Use" is the object itself. "Mention" is the term qua the term. Think of it like if we were to write "bleup" and "fleub" for the distinction instead. Don't think of everyday senses of "use" and "mention."

[Terrapin Station]

To refer to the same cat under multiple times is to observe the same cat under different contexts

No! That's just what we're avoiding. Each occurrence of the term MUST refer to exactly the same thing, in exactly the same respect, at exactly the same time, etc.

The occurence of the same thing, under the same respect and at the same time cannot be observed under multiple instances as the instances necessitate a seperation. P=P necessitates multiple instances of the same thing, thus each observation is a different context.

At best identity should be described simply as "P", not "P=P".

What I'm talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with observation.

[Eodnhoj7]

No! That's just what we're avoiding. Each occurrence of the term MUST refer to exactly the same thing, in exactly the same respect, at exactly the same time, etc.

The occurence of the same thing, under the same respect and at the same time cannot be observed under multiple instances as the instances necessitate a seperation. P=P necessitates multiple instances of the same thing, thus each observation is a different context.

At best identity should be described simply as "P", not "P=P".

What I'm talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with observation.

Any proposition or term, as assumed, is observed. P=P is multiple instances thus multiple contexts.

[Terrapin Station]

The occurence of the same thing, under the same respect and at the same time cannot be observed under multiple instances as the instances necessitate a seperation. P=P necessitates multiple instances of the same thing, thus each observation is a different context.

At best identity should be described simply as "P", not "P=P".

What I'm talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with observation.

Any proposition or term, as assumed, is obseThats

That's fine, but what I'm talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with observation, so you're not at all even understanding the context.

[Eodnhoj7]

Just fyi, since I didn't make this explicit earlier and I realize it might not be intuitively obvious, the convention is that when we put a term in quotation marks, we're referring to the term as a term--as a word we can write or say. When we leave off the quotation marks, we're referring to the thing, not the term.

Hence "cat" has three letters and starts with a "c," but a cat doesn't. A cat drinks milk and meows and so on. This is also known as the use/mention distinction. "Cat" is the mention side and a cat is the use side.

Mentioning a term is the use of the term. To mention something is to use it.

It has nothing to do with general senses of those terms. "Use" is the object itself. "Mention" is the term qua the term. Think of it like if we were to write "bleup" and "fleub" for the distinction instead. Don't think of everyday senses of "use" and "mention."

There is no object in itself. Mention of a term through the term is use of the term. If the everyday sense of the words "use" and "mention" are observed then you are equating one term(s) with multiple terms thus resulting in equivocation.