P=/=P

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:58 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:55 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:54 am
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.
You are observing a context thus observation is inseperable. Multiple instances of the same thing necessitate multiple contexts thus the thing is different to itself.

The "cat" under the left of the "=" sign is not the same as the "cat" to the right of it.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: P=/=P

Post by Terrapin Station »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:59 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:53 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:47 am

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.
There are no cats, for example, you mean?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P=/=P

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:01 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:59 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:53 am
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.
There are no cats, for example, you mean?
There is no cat which exists independent of the context in which it is presented as the context defines the cat. Multiple instances of the cat are multiple contexts of the cat thus different cats.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: P=/=P

Post by Terrapin Station »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:00 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:58 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:55 am

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.
You are observing a context thus observation is inseperable. Multiple instances of the same thing necessitate multiple contexts thus the thing is different to itself.

The "cat" under the left of the "=" sign is not the same as the "cat" to the right of it.
I'm hoping you're not being intentionally stupid here.

Let's try it this way:

Do you believe it's possible for words to refer to something? For example, could a word refer to a particular historical event (and assume an event in as fine of detail as possible)?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: P=/=P

Post by Terrapin Station »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:03 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:01 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:59 am

There is no object in itself.
There are no cats, for example, you mean?
There is no cat which exists independent of the context in which it is presented as the context defines the cat. Multiple instances of the cat are multiple contexts of the cat thus different cats.
So are there cats or not? I didn't say are there context-free cats. Just are there cats?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P=/=P

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:00 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:58 am
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.
You are observing a context thus observation is inseperable. Multiple instances of the same thing necessitate multiple contexts thus the thing is different to itself.

The "cat" under the left of the "=" sign is not the same as the "cat" to the right of it.
I'm hoping you're not being intentionally stupid here.

Let's try it this way:

Do you believe it's possible for words to refer to something? For example, could a word refer to a particular historical event (and assume an event in as fine of detail as possible)?
Words can refer to something, yet multiple words can refer to the same thing. One thing may equivocate to multiple different words.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: P=/=P

Post by Terrapin Station »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:06 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:00 am

You are observing a context thus observation is inseperable. Multiple instances of the same thing necessitate multiple contexts thus the thing is different to itself.

The "cat" under the left of the "=" sign is not the same as the "cat" to the right of it.
I'm hoping you're not being intentionally stupid here.

Let's try it this way:

Do you believe it's possible for words to refer to something? For example, could a word refer to a particular historical event (and assume an event in as fine of detail as possible)?
Words can refer to something, yet multiple words can refer to the same thing. One thing may equivocate to multiple different words.
Sure. Can the same word used on two different occasions refer to the same thing?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P=/=P

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:03 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:01 am

There are no cats, for example, you mean?
There is no cat which exists independent of the context in which it is presented as the context defines the cat. Multiple instances of the cat are multiple contexts of the cat thus different cats.
So are there cats or not? I didn't say are there context-free cats. Just are there cats?
There are both no cats and cats. No cat as independent of context, cat as dependent upon context.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P=/=P

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:06 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:06 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:04 am
I'm hoping you're not being intentionally stupid here.

Let's try it this way:

Do you believe it's possible for words to refer to something? For example, could a word refer to a particular historical event (and assume an event in as fine of detail as possible)?
Words can refer to something, yet multiple words can refer to the same thing. One thing may equivocate to multiple different words.
Sure. Can the same word used on two different occasions refer to the same thing?
Using the word "Martha" on two different occasions referenced to different contexts of Martha. The Martha one references at a party is not the same Martha one references at work.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: P=/=P

Post by Terrapin Station »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:08 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:06 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:06 am
Words can refer to something, yet multiple words can refer to the same thing. One thing may equivocate to multiple different words.
Sure. Can the same word used on two different occasions refer to the same thing?
Using the word "Martha" on two different occasions referenced to different contexts of Martha. The Martha one references at a party is not the same Martha one references at work.
Okay, so you'd say that different words can refer to the same thing (you just wrote as much above) but it's impossible to use the same word on two different occasions to refer to the same thing? I just want to clarify that.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P=/=P

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:10 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:08 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:06 am

Sure. Can the same word used on two different occasions refer to the same thing?
Using the word "Martha" on two different occasions referenced to different contexts of Martha. The Martha one references at a party is not the same Martha one references at work.
Okay, so you'd say that different words can refer to the same thing (you just wrote as much above) but it's impossible to use the same word on two different occasions to refer to the same thing? I just want to clarify that.
Each different occasion is a different context.

Different words can refer to the same thing. One thing results in a variety of words.

The same word under different contexts results in different meanings of the word. One word results in a variety of things.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: P=/=P

Post by Terrapin Station »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:18 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:10 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:08 am

Using the word "Martha" on two different occasions referenced to different contexts of Martha. The Martha one references at a party is not the same Martha one references at work.
Okay, so you'd say that different words can refer to the same thing (you just wrote as much above) but it's impossible to use the same word on two different occasions to refer to the same thing? I just want to clarify that.
Each different occasion is a different context.

Different words can refer to the same thing. One thing results in a variety of words.

The same word under different contexts results in different meanings of the word. One word results in a variety of things.
Right. So on your view, if we specify some historical event in as much detail as possible (specifying contexts, perspectives, etc. etc.), we could coin the words "dit" and "dut" to refer to that specific/exact same event, and two different people, or one person on two different occasions, could use "dit" and "dut" to refer to that event. (Again, this is something you admitted earlier.)

But if one of the people, or the one person on the different occasion, changes the "u" in "dut" to an "i," they can no longer use that utterance to refer to that specific/exact same historical event.

At least it's plain for anyone to see why you said something so confused as your initial post in this thread!
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P=/=P

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:26 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:18 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:10 am

Okay, so you'd say that different words can refer to the same thing (you just wrote as much above) but it's impossible to use the same word on two different occasions to refer to the same thing? I just want to clarify that.
Each different occasion is a different context.

Different words can refer to the same thing. One thing results in a variety of words.

The same word under different contexts results in different meanings of the word. One word results in a variety of things.
Right. So on your view, if we specify some historical event in as much detail as possible (specifying contexts, perspectives, etc. etc.), we could coin the words "dit" and "dut" to refer to that specific/exact same event, and two different people, or one person on two different occasions, could use "dit" and "dut" to refer to that event. (Again, this is something you admitted earlier.)

But if one of the people, or the one person on the different occasion, changes the "u" in "dut" to an "i," they can no longer use that utterance to refer to that specific/exact same historical event.

At least it's plain for anyone to see why you said something so confused as your initial post in this thread!
1. No, the same word has multiple meanings under different contexts. Martha at the party is not the same Martha at work. Martha is context dependent.

2. One event can be observed through a multitude of words. "Dit" and "Dut" can both reference the same event from multiple perspectives. The variety of languages, all referencing the same things, proves this.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: P=/=P

Post by Terrapin Station »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:53 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:26 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:18 am
Each different occasion is a different context.

Different words can refer to the same thing. One thing results in a variety of words.

The same word under different contexts results in different meanings of the word. One word results in a variety of things.
Right. So on your view, if we specify some historical event in as much detail as possible (specifying contexts, perspectives, etc. etc.), we could coin the words "dit" and "dut" to refer to that specific/exact same event, and two different people, or one person on two different occasions, could use "dit" and "dut" to refer to that event. (Again, this is something you admitted earlier.)

But if one of the people, or the one person on the different occasion, changes the "u" in "dut" to an "i," they can no longer use that utterance to refer to that specific/exact same historical event.

At least it's plain for anyone to see why you said something so confused as your initial post in this thread!
1. No, the same word has multiple meanings under different contexts. Martha at the party is not the same Martha at work. Martha is context dependent.

2. One event can be observed through a multitude of words. "Dit" and "Dut" can both reference the same event from multiple perspectives. The variety of languages, all referencing the same things, proves this.
So why when you change that one letter is it no longer possible to refer to the same thing? How does that work ontologically? It seems like that one letter would need to have magical power.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P=/=P

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:08 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:53 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:26 pm

Right. So on your view, if we specify some historical event in as much detail as possible (specifying contexts, perspectives, etc. etc.), we could coin the words "dit" and "dut" to refer to that specific/exact same event, and two different people, or one person on two different occasions, could use "dit" and "dut" to refer to that event. (Again, this is something you admitted earlier.)

But if one of the people, or the one person on the different occasion, changes the "u" in "dut" to an "i," they can no longer use that utterance to refer to that specific/exact same historical event.

At least it's plain for anyone to see why you said something so confused as your initial post in this thread!
1. No, the same word has multiple meanings under different contexts. Martha at the party is not the same Martha at work. Martha is context dependent.

2. One event can be observed through a multitude of words. "Dit" and "Dut" can both reference the same event from multiple perspectives. The variety of languages, all referencing the same things, proves this.
So why when you change that one letter is it no longer possible to refer to the same thing? How does that work ontologically? It seems like that one letter would need to have magical power.
The event is observed through a new angle as a new phenomenon. Dually the one event is observed through the multitude of words.

The event is both observed as a new event and the event is observed under a multitude of words as new definitions of said event.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply