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".
The Law of Identity as Strictly "P"
Re: The Law of Identity as Strictly "P"
It's not even a law. It simply says "P" represents something. It could represent anything and everything.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:53 am 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".
The law of identity asserts that P = P. The problem arises because the equality operator is binary: it takes two arguments, but there is only one P.
That's why P = P is a meaningless assertion. Where did the second P come from?
It's trivial to see when you re-write P = P as equal(P,P). Where does the second P come from?
Equality is Dyadic. Identity is Monadic
Re: The Law of Identity as Strictly "P"
The law of identity is a law of representation, it specifies how a phenomenon is identified.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:48 amIt's not even a law. It simply says "P" represents something. It could represent anything and everything.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:53 am 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".
The law of identity asserts that P = P. The problem arises because the equality operator is binary: it takes two arguments, but there is only one P.
That's why P = P is a meaningless assertion. Where did the second P come from?
It's trivial to see when you re-write P = P as equal(P,P). Where does the second P come from?
Equality is Dyadic. Identity is Monadic
In agreement with the rest.
Re: The Law of Identity as Strictly "P"
It doesn't specify HOW it is identified. However the phenomenon is identified, it's assigned to the placeholder P
But then things get totally weird in Classical logic...
The identity law is: P is P. A rose is a rose is a rose. So P is a placeholder for a rose.
Then the law of excluded middle (LEM) says: either P is true; or ¬P is true.
What could a true not-rose possibly be like?!?
Re: The Law of Identity as Strictly "P"
1. A non rose would be all contexts surrounding the rose.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:05 amIt doesn't specify HOW it is identified. However the phenomenon is identified, it's assigned to the placeholder P
But then things get totally weird in Classical logic...
The identity law is: P is P. A rose is a rose is a rose. So P is a placeholder for a rose.
Then the law of excluded middle (LEM) says: either P is true; or ¬P is true.
What could a true not-rose possibly be like?!?
2. It specifies how it is identified by pointing to the phenomenon. The placeholder is an act of pointing.
But I see your point and would have to agree with most of it.