The Questions of Equivocation

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by Age »

Harbal wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:03 pm
Age wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:57 pm See, to me, the word 'equality' could never have a precise meaning 'in philosophy', because of what the word 'philosophy' precisely means, to me.
That can be the case with so many words. No matter how precise you try to be with your wording, and phrasing, there comes a point where all you can do is just hope that those you are trying to communicate with will know what you mean.
I can do more than just hope this.

I can keep learning how to communicate better, and just keep doing this.

I know there is a way to explain, what 'it' is, which I want to communicate, so that who I want to communicate 'it' with will also know what I mean. Learning that way just takes some time to master.

Also, I could 'assume' what you mean, and on 'some' occasions get it right, and so do know what you mean at those times. But I do not like to assume absolutely any thing, and because of the length of time it takes to clarify what each word, exactly, means in every specific case I do not go down this route as often as I would like to.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9558
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by Harbal »

Age wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:16 pm

I can keep learning how to communicate better, and just keep doing this.

I know there is a way to explain, what 'it' is, which I want to communicate, so that who I want to communicate 'it' with will also know what I mean. Learning that way just takes some time to master.
Given that there is a genuine desire to understand and be understood in all the participants, it should be achievable.
Also, I could 'assume' what you mean, and on 'some' occasions get it right, and so do know what you mean at those times. But I do not like to assume absolutely any thing, and because of the length of time it takes to clarify what each word, exactly, means in every specific case I do not go down this route as often as I would like to.
Yes, I know what you mean, or at least I think I do. Since our first encounter, a little while back, I have tried to get a sense of how you think when it comes to your style of communication. In as much as I understand it, I do try to work in accordance with it. Even when I fail, I just want you to know that I am making an effort.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by Age »

Harbal wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:36 pm
Age wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:16 pm

I can keep learning how to communicate better, and just keep doing this.

I know there is a way to explain, what 'it' is, which I want to communicate, so that who I want to communicate 'it' with will also know what I mean. Learning that way just takes some time to master.
Given that there is a genuine desire to understand and be understood in all the participants, it should be achievable.
It is most certainly achievable.

The time frame I found just takes much longer than most hope for.
Harbal wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:36 pm
Also, I could 'assume' what you mean, and on 'some' occasions get it right, and so do know what you mean at those times. But I do not like to assume absolutely any thing, and because of the length of time it takes to clarify what each word, exactly, means in every specific case I do not go down this route as often as I would like to.
Yes, I know what you mean, or at least I think I do. Since our first encounter, a little while back, I have tried to get a sense of how you think when it comes to your style of communication. In as much as I understand it, I do try to work in accordance with it. Even when I fail, I just want you to know that I am making an effort.
I am seeing that you are much more clearly now.

And thank you for letting me know, and for making the effort.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:52 am Where does total equality exist?
I suppose notional equality can exist, but absolute equality cannot. No two things can ever be the same thing, no matter how similar they are. As far as arbitrary equaliy is concerned, where we might say two things are equal in a certain respect, we simply decide for ourselves what qualifying conditions must be met in order to arrive at that conclusion.
True. Equality must be dependent upon the similarities within the different phenomena.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 4:06 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:52 am Two mammals share the same nature of mammal thus the two are connected as one through their relationship, their relationship is "mammal".

Equality is a relationship as it is a connection and if phenomena relate then they equivocate.

This is tied to my second point, which is best phrased through questions:

Where does total equality exist?

If total equality does not exist then is it not possible anything can equate if a similarity occurs?
You can find total equality in the quantum realm. You can prove that two photons are indistinguishable using quantum experiments.
But there are two photons and this "two" necessitates a seperation in time and space.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:46 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:52 am Two mammals share the same nature of mammal thus the two are connected as one through their relationship, their relationship is "mammal".

Equality is a relationship as it is a connection and if phenomena relate then they equivocate.

This is tied to my second point, which is best phrased through questions:

Where does total equality exist?

If total equality does not exist then is it not possible anything can equate if a similarity occurs?
Your level of confusion is astonishing.
Please loo up Equivocation..
DEFINITION:
use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.
Of course equivocation is ambiguous.

This ambiguity is derived from the two, or more, phenomena having no separation between them because they have the same qualities. This absence of separation results in a single phenomenon which is obscure because there is an absence of comparison necessary for definition/distinction to take place. The equality of multiple phenomena points to the multiple phenomena being one, this one phenomenon has no comparison.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Thu Aug 25, 2022 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:54 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:52 am Two mammals share the same nature of mammal thus the two are connected as one through their relationship, their relationship is "mammal".

Equality is a relationship as it is a connection and if phenomena relate then they equivocate.

This is tied to my second point, which is best phrased through questions:

Where does total equality exist?

If total equality does not exist then is it not possible anything can equate if a similarity occurs?
The two mammals only relate via an external observer; the human who is interested enough to define them both through criteria he finds important.
There is no equivocation since you do not know the meaning of the word.

To answer your question - which is unrelated to the example - no where, since "total" equality is an oxymoron, there is only one totality.

Equality can exist in parts defined by specific limiting characteristics.
The animals relate to eachother regardless of the human observer given the premise that animals have consciousness...like breeds with like. This "like breeds with like" necessitates that animals observe a similarity.

As to your second point I think we can agree that "Equality can exist in parts defined by specific limiting characteristics."

Considering equality occurs in parts then all phenomena can equivocate given a common "part" which occurs across a spectrum. One common part is the "atom", another common part is form, another is time/space, etc. Universal equality exists.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:56 am
Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:52 am Where does total equality exist?
I suppose notional equality can exist, but absolute equality cannot. No two things can ever be the same thing, no matter how similar they are.
Is every physical thing made up of matter?

If yes, then could this be an absolute equality?
Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:50 pm As far as arbitrary equaliy is concerned, where we might say two things are equal in a certain respect, we simply decide for ourselves what qualifying conditions must be met in order to arrive at that conclusion.
Could 'inequality' also be decided upon qualifying conditions, also in a certain respect?
Equality for the physical...yes. Is everything physical? It depends on how you define physical.

Inequality decided upon by conditions would paradoxically result in equality as all phenomena, that are unequal, share the meta-phenomenon of "absence".
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by Sculptor »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 10:14 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:54 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:52 am Two mammals share the same nature of mammal thus the two are connected as one through their relationship, their relationship is "mammal".

Equality is a relationship as it is a connection and if phenomena relate then they equivocate.

This is tied to my second point, which is best phrased through questions:

Where does total equality exist?

If total equality does not exist then is it not possible anything can equate if a similarity occurs?
The two mammals only relate via an external observer; the human who is interested enough to define them both through criteria he finds important.
There is no equivocation since you do not know the meaning of the word.

To answer your question - which is unrelated to the example - no where, since "total" equality is an oxymoron, there is only one totality.

Equality can exist in parts defined by specific limiting characteristics.
The animals relate to eachother regardless of the human observer given the premise that animals have consciousness...like breeds with like. This "like breeds with like" necessitates that animals observe a similarity.

As to your second point I think we can agree that "Equality can exist in parts defined by specific limiting characteristics."

Considering equality occurs in parts then all phenomena can equivocate given a common "part" which occurs across a spectrum. One common part is the "atom", another common part is form, another is time/space, etc. Universal equality exists.
You are on the road to despair and confusion.
You cannot hold on to a context, and flip from one place to another like a drunken spider.
Duh "Universal Equality exists" yet not even two atoms can be the same.
Duh "Total equality is an oxymoron", yet it is easy to define the parameters of equality simply by nominating characteristics of, say, an atom, and ignoring other aspects of its secondary characteristics such as an atom's place in space/time which has to be unequal.

None of this has any value and is the same area of confusion as expressed by Roydop here:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35521&start=195

You are either a sock puppet of Roydop or if not I think you two are going to get on with your mutual incoherence.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 10:06 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 4:06 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:52 am Two mammals share the same nature of mammal thus the two are connected as one through their relationship, their relationship is "mammal".

Equality is a relationship as it is a connection and if phenomena relate then they equivocate.

This is tied to my second point, which is best phrased through questions:

Where does total equality exist?

If total equality does not exist then is it not possible anything can equate if a similarity occurs?
You can find total equality in the quantum realm. You can prove that two photons are indistinguishable using quantum experiments.
But there are two photons and this "two" necessitates a seperation in time and space.
Why do you set up the question of if total equality can exist, if you've already defined yourself into a corner that necessitates that total equality cant exist?

"Equality is a relationship as it is a connection and if phenomena relate then they equivocate."

This is you implying that there's a conceptual possibility of two things being in a relationship called "equality". But now you're saying two things can't have that relationship.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing that embodies that relationship in this world quite like quantum particles, because as soon as two quantum particles cross paths, their futures become intertwined and indistinguishable - you can never truly know if you have particle 1 or particle 2, because that information simply isn't there.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 10:34 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 10:14 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:54 pm

The two mammals only relate via an external observer; the human who is interested enough to define them both through criteria he finds important.
There is no equivocation since you do not know the meaning of the word.

To answer your question - which is unrelated to the example - no where, since "total" equality is an oxymoron, there is only one totality.

Equality can exist in parts defined by specific limiting characteristics.
The animals relate to eachother regardless of the human observer given the premise that animals have consciousness...like breeds with like. This "like breeds with like" necessitates that animals observe a similarity.

As to your second point I think we can agree that "Equality can exist in parts defined by specific limiting characteristics."

Considering equality occurs in parts then all phenomena can equivocate given a common "part" which occurs across a spectrum. One common part is the "atom", another common part is form, another is time/space, etc. Universal equality exists.
You are on the road to despair and confusion.
You cannot hold on to a context, and flip from one place to another like a drunken spider.
Duh "Universal Equality exists" yet not even two atoms can be the same.
Duh "Total equality is an oxymoron", yet it is easy to define the parameters of equality simply by nominating characteristics of, say, an atom, and ignoring other aspects of its secondary characteristics such as an atom's place in space/time which has to be unequal.

None of this has any value and is the same area of confusion as expressed by Roydop here:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35521&start=195

You are either a sock puppet of Roydop or if not I think you two are going to get on with your mutual incoherence.
Equality exists where two different phenomena share one or more similar qualities. Because no two phenomena are the same, equality requires the sharing of one or more qualities. Equality thus occurs in through grades or parts. In these respects all phenomenon, however different, are universally equal given they share the same quality known as "being". They are equal because of their similarities and all phenomena share the quality of "being". Because all phenomena share this quality all phenomena are equal, all phenomena being equal is universal equality.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:13 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 10:06 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 4:06 pm
You can find total equality in the quantum realm. You can prove that two photons are indistinguishable using quantum experiments.
But there are two photons and this "two" necessitates a seperation in time and space.
Why do you set up the question of if total equality can exist, if you've already defined yourself into a corner that necessitates that total equality cant exist?

"Equality is a relationship as it is a connection and if phenomena relate then they equivocate."

This is you implying that there's a conceptual possibility of two things being in a relationship called "equality". But now you're saying two things can't have that relationship.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing that embodies that relationship in this world quite like quantum particles, because as soon as two quantum particles cross paths, their futures become intertwined and indistinguishable - you can never truly know if you have particle 1 or particle 2, because that information simply isn't there.
Equality both occurs and does not occur simultaneously. It occurs through similarities, which allow it to exist. It does not occur through differences, which negates it. Phenomena are the same except where they are different; phenomena share the nature of being both similar and different.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by bobmax »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 01, 2022 11:47 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:13 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 10:06 pm But there are two photons and this "two" necessitates a seperation in time and space.
Why do you set up the question of if total equality can exist, if you've already defined yourself into a corner that necessitates that total equality cant exist?

"Equality is a relationship as it is a connection and if phenomena relate then they equivocate."

This is you implying that there's a conceptual possibility of two things being in a relationship called "equality". But now you're saying two things can't have that relationship.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing that embodies that relationship in this world quite like quantum particles, because as soon as two quantum particles cross paths, their futures become intertwined and indistinguishable - you can never truly know if you have particle 1 or particle 2, because that information simply isn't there.
Equality both occurs and does not occur simultaneously. It occurs through similarities, which allow it to exist. It does not occur through differences, which negates it. Phenomena are the same except where they are different; phenomena share the nature of being both similar and different.
Any difference is possible only because it is based on equality.

It is equality that allows for the difference.

Although it is the difference that shows the equality that underlies it.

The alien is never really "other" from me, his diversity is possible only because it is based on his being myself.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by Sculptor »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 01, 2022 11:45 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 10:34 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 10:14 pm

The animals relate to eachother regardless of the human observer given the premise that animals have consciousness...like breeds with like. This "like breeds with like" necessitates that animals observe a similarity.

As to your second point I think we can agree that "Equality can exist in parts defined by specific limiting characteristics."

Considering equality occurs in parts then all phenomena can equivocate given a common "part" which occurs across a spectrum. One common part is the "atom", another common part is form, another is time/space, etc. Universal equality exists.
You are on the road to despair and confusion.
You cannot hold on to a context, and flip from one place to another like a drunken spider.
Duh "Universal Equality exists" yet not even two atoms can be the same.
Duh "Total equality is an oxymoron", yet it is easy to define the parameters of equality simply by nominating characteristics of, say, an atom, and ignoring other aspects of its secondary characteristics such as an atom's place in space/time which has to be unequal.

None of this has any value and is the same area of confusion as expressed by Roydop here:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35521&start=195

You are either a sock puppet of Roydop or if not I think you two are going to get on with your mutual incoherence.
Equality exists where two different phenomena share one or more similar qualities. Because no two phenomena are the same, equality requires the sharing of one or more qualities. Equality thus occurs in through grades or parts. In these respects all phenomenon, however different, are universally equal given they share the same quality known as "being". They are equal because of their similarities and all phenomena share the quality of "being". Because all phenomena share this quality all phenomena are equal, all phenomena being equal is universal equality.
I am glad you have resolved your utter confusion.
The only problem here is the idea of "being" which necessitates consciousness to distinguish it from "existing", and existing relies on verification by beings,(such as humans), who have perception, but does not require such verification for their existence.
So, yes, whatever a thing is, it shares in common a quality we call "existing", with other "things" we might chose to nominate.
DUH. Tautological masturbation.
Do you have a point to make?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Questions of Equivocation

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

bobmax wrote: Fri Sep 02, 2022 5:01 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 01, 2022 11:47 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:13 am
Why do you set up the question of if total equality can exist, if you've already defined yourself into a corner that necessitates that total equality cant exist?

"Equality is a relationship as it is a connection and if phenomena relate then they equivocate."

This is you implying that there's a conceptual possibility of two things being in a relationship called "equality". But now you're saying two things can't have that relationship.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing that embodies that relationship in this world quite like quantum particles, because as soon as two quantum particles cross paths, their futures become intertwined and indistinguishable - you can never truly know if you have particle 1 or particle 2, because that information simply isn't there.
Equality both occurs and does not occur simultaneously. It occurs through similarities, which allow it to exist. It does not occur through differences, which negates it. Phenomena are the same except where they are different; phenomena share the nature of being both similar and different.
Any difference is possible only because it is based on equality.

It is equality that allows for the difference.

Although it is the difference that shows the equality that underlies it.

The alien is never really "other" from me, his diversity is possible only because it is based on his being myself.
Equality and difference are two opposites of the spectrum and as such are extremes which depend on each other for contrast, you cannot have one without the other. Given phenomenon depend upon extremes, as both extremes and phenomenon are both relative, both sides of the spectrum (ie the extremes) exist simultaneously when exposed to multiple contexts.
Post Reply