.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The A=A

Post by Sculptor »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 11:14 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 11:02 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:52 pm

1. Yet communication requires symbols pointing to the same thing. If x means y it must be observe across multiple observers that x means the same thing.
Communication is never perfect. One of the reasons is that each thing is unique. That means all words are only approximations. A word is NOT the same thing as it represents.
This idea is not difficult.
eg. And apple and another apple is 2 apples. Yet each apple has a different mass, shape, colour and existence in space/time.
I am puzzled you are having a problem with this rather simple no-brainer.

2. A=A is more than nominally correct, it is correct in the real world given 1 leaf is equal to 1 leaf. All things are the same except for there differences.
Next time you see a tree, try and find two leaves the same. It is impossble.

3. Events repeat in the real world thus necessitating A equals A in the real world.
No event is ever repeatable.

4. The repeatability of the branching form of Y necessitates A=A in the real world.
Rubbish
1. Why are you having difficulty accepting that the 2 apples still share common traits (ie uniqueness is not universal)?
I'm not.
WHy are you so stupid as to confuse a statement in which I say that no two things are the same with not sharing traits?

2. The fact that you can equate "2" to "leaves" observes same qualities repeating.
See above

3. Classifying a cat as a cat observes the qualities of cat as repeatable.
And all cats are unique

4. False, branching repeats. The "Y" form repeats.
gibberish
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 4:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:54 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:33 am
A=A is merely a logically truth which do not necessarily represent reality in all cases.
In general logic what we are doing is dealing with only abstracted things and not real particular things.

There is no absolute truth, i.e. no absolutely-absolute truth.
What is truth is always relative truths, i.e. they are relative to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
For example, we have the truth of "absolute-temperature" but this 'absolute' is relative to the scientific FSK, thus it is a relative absolute and a relative truth.

At present, the range scientific truths are the most credible [in degrees] in comparison to other sources of truths from different FSKs.
But despite being the most credible truths, scientific truths are at best merely 'polished conjectures'.
There are no absolutely-absolute truths.
"What is truth is always relative truths" is an absolute statement as is occurs consistently.
Noted you agree with the term 'relative-absolute.'
Does your "an absolute statement" means 'relative absolute statement'?

For me,
"What is truth is always relative truths" is a relative-absolute statement.
It is an absolute that relative absolutes exists.

There are:

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

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:15 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 11:14 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 11:02 pm
Communication is never perfect. One of the reasons is that each thing is unique. That means all words are only approximations. A word is NOT the same thing as it represents.
This idea is not difficult.
eg. And apple and another apple is 2 apples. Yet each apple has a different mass, shape, colour and existence in space/time.
I am puzzled you are having a problem with this rather simple no-brainer.

Next time you see a tree, try and find two leaves the same. It is impossble.
No event is ever repeatable.

Rubbish
1. Why are you having difficulty accepting that the 2 apples still share common traits (ie uniqueness is not universal)?
I'm not.
WHy are you so stupid as to confuse a statement in which I say that no two things are the same with not sharing traits?

2. The fact that you can equate "2" to "leaves" observes same qualities repeating.
See above

3. Classifying a cat as a cat observes the qualities of cat as repeatable.
And all cats are unique

4. False, branching repeats. The "Y" form repeats.
gibberish
1. Because the sharing of qualities necessitates sameness between phenomenon. The ability to quantify or group phenomenon necessitates phenomenon as being the same. Phenomena are both same and different...I am focusing on where they are the same.

2. And the classification of cat necessitates sameness occuring amidst the cats.

3. Lighting, cracks in rock/dirt, veins, capillaries, trees, plants, etc.

3.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The A=A

Post by Sculptor »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:28 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:15 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 11:14 pm

1. Why are you having difficulty accepting that the 2 apples still share common traits (ie uniqueness is not universal)?
I'm not.
WHy are you so stupid as to confuse a statement in which I say that no two things are the same with not sharing traits?

2. The fact that you can equate "2" to "leaves" observes same qualities repeating.
See above

3. Classifying a cat as a cat observes the qualities of cat as repeatable.
And all cats are unique

4. False, branching repeats. The "Y" form repeats.
gibberish
1. Because the sharing of qualities necessitates sameness between phenomenon. The ability to quantify or group phenomenon necessitates phenomenon as being the same. Phenomena are both same and different...I am focusing on where they are the same.

2. And the classification of cat necessitates sameness occuring amidst the cats.

3. Lighting, cracks in rock/dirt, veins, capillaries, trees, plants, etc.

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

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:20 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:28 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:15 am
I'm not.
WHy are you so stupid as to confuse a statement in which I say that no two things are the same with not sharing traits?

See above

And all cats are unique

gibberish
1. Because the sharing of qualities necessitates sameness between phenomenon. The ability to quantify or group phenomenon necessitates phenomenon as being the same. Phenomena are both same and different...I am focusing on where they are the same.

2. And the classification of cat necessitates sameness occuring amidst the cats.

3. Lighting, cracks in rock/dirt, veins, capillaries, trees, plants, etc.

3.
4. Yawn.
Not everything is unique.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12239
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:24 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 4:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:54 pm

"What is truth is always relative truths" is an absolute statement as is occurs consistently.
Noted you agree with the term 'relative-absolute.'
Does your "an absolute statement" means 'relative absolute statement'?

For me,
"What is truth is always relative truths" is a relative-absolute statement.
It is an absolute that relative absolutes exists.

There are:

Relatives
Absolutes
Relative Absolutes
But not that

It is an absolutely-absolute that relative absolutes exists, unless you are claiming as if you are a God.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The A=A

Post by Sculptor »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 11:45 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:20 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:28 pm

1. Because the sharing of qualities necessitates sameness between phenomenon. The ability to quantify or group phenomenon necessitates phenomenon as being the same. Phenomena are both same and different...I am focusing on where they are the same.

2. And the classification of cat necessitates sameness occuring amidst the cats.

3. Lighting, cracks in rock/dirt, veins, capillaries, trees, plants, etc.

3.
4. Yawn.
Not everything is unique.
Name two things exactly the same!
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:07 am Name two things exactly the same!
It depends on what notions of "exactness" and "sameness" you have in mind.

As soon as you specify your criteria I will hapilly furnish you with objects that satisfy them.

Any two things are the same, except for their differences.
Any two things are different, except for their similarities.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 11:45 pm Not everything is unique.
Actually anything that exists must be unique, or it does not exist. No two things can be totally identical, that is, no two things can have exactly the same attributes, (qualities, properties, characteristics) else they would not be two things but the same thing.

Everything that exists also has some attributes that are the same as those other things have. It is epistemologically useful to identify existents with the same attributes as universals. Every dog is different in some way from every other dog. Dogs are identified as dogs because of the attributes they all have common to all dogs.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:07 am Name two things exactly the same!
One of the issues I have always had with atomic and subatomic physics is that all the particles are essentially identical, and totally interchangeable. An electron is an electron is an electron and except for possible relationships (energy levels, position, etc.) they are indistinguishable.

If they are real entities wouldn't they have be different in some way? The only way electrons (or protons, or neutrons, or any other sub-atomic particle) must be different is position. Two cannot be in the same place at the same time.

As science describes them, they have no intrinsic different attributes. Any two electrons, protons, neutrons, positrons, quarcks, or mesons would be the same, wouldn't they?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:04 pm One of the issues I have always had with atomic and subatomic physics is that all the particles are essentially identical, and totally interchangeable. An electron is an electron is an electron and except for possible relationships (energy levels, position, etc.) they are indistinguishable.
Why is that a problem for physics? Why isn't it a problem for the notion of "identity"?
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:04 pm If they are real entities wouldn't they have be different in some way?
You mean other than an electron's different location in spacetime? A location very close to the previous one where it was observed.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:04 pm The only way electrons (or protons, or neutrons, or any other sub-atomic particle) must be different is position. Two cannot be in the same place at the same time.
You are going to have to be a little bit more specific what you mean by the "same" time.

There is no such thing as observing two objects at "the same time". You can observe one, then you can observe the other.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:04 pm As science describes them, they have no intrinsic different attributes. Any two electrons, protons, neutrons, positrons, quarcks, or mesons would be the same, wouldn't they?
You really don't know what "sameness" means.

Uniqueness is guaranteed by the location of an entity in some coordinate scheme.

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.” ― Heraclitus
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The A=A

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:04 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:07 am Name two things exactly the same!
One of the issues I have always had with atomic and subatomic physics is that all the particles are essentially identical, and totally interchangeable. An electron is an electron is an electron and except for possible relationships (energy levels, position, etc.) they are indistinguishable.

If they are real entities wouldn't they have be different in some way? The only way electrons (or protons, or neutrons, or any other sub-atomic particle) must be different is position. Two cannot be in the same place at the same time.

As science describes them, they have no intrinsic different attributes. Any two electrons, protons, neutrons, positrons, quarcks, or mesons would be the same, wouldn't they?
All these things are somewhat theoretical, and I agree that to work each "quark" or whatever, if it is exists at all has to have the same properties of everyother quark, excpet for ONE very important thing which makes everything in the universe unique...

As you astutely observe - since not electron can occupy the same space/time as any other then it is their position spatically and temporily that make each one unique and that A is not A.

This goes back to assert my initial reaction to the thread topic.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 7:04 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:04 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:07 am Name two things exactly the same!
One of the issues I have always had with atomic and subatomic physics is that all the particles are essentially identical, and totally interchangeable. An electron is an electron is an electron and except for possible relationships (energy levels, position, etc.) they are indistinguishable.

If they are real entities wouldn't they have be different in some way? The only way electrons (or protons, or neutrons, or any other sub-atomic particle) must be different is position. Two cannot be in the same place at the same time.

As science describes them, they have no intrinsic different attributes. Any two electrons, protons, neutrons, positrons, quarks, or mesons would be the same, wouldn't they?
All these things are somewhat theoretical, and I agree that to work each "quark" or whatever, if it is exists at all has to have the same properties of every other quark, excpet for ONE very important thing which makes everything in the universe unique...

As you astutely observe - since no electron can occupy the same space/time as any other then it is their position spatially and temporally that make each one unique and that A is not A.

This goes back to assert my initial reaction to the thread topic.
Well, I agree, because you've actually said what I mean. A quark has to have the attributes science assigns to a quark, or it would be something else.

So our difference about, "A is A," is really a difference in what we mean by, "A." What I mean by, "A," is only a symbol for a kind of thing, like a quark, or proton. For me, "A," represents a phrase, "a particular kind of existent," so "A is A," means, "a particular kind of existent is that particular kind of existent." It really ought to be, "an A is an A and not any other kind of thing." "A is A," means a quark is a quark and not a positron (or anything else). It does not mean any quark is identical to any other quark.

And it is true for anything that exists. A dog is a dog, (and not a cat), and a river is a river, (and not a lake), and apple is an apple, (and not an egg). In each case there is only one dog, river, or lake referred to.

That's what I mean by, "A is A."

I don't want to speak for you, but you seem to view, "A," in, "A is A," as representing two different existents. Usually that case would be represented, "A is B," meaning the two different things, were actually the same thing (which as you pointed out cannot be). If what you mean by, "A is A," is not what I mean, of course you will not agree. In which case there cannot really be an argument because we'd be talking about two different things.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:47 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:04 pm One of the issues I have always had with atomic and subatomic physics is that all the particles are essentially identical, and totally interchangeable. An electron is an electron is an electron and except for possible relationships (energy levels, position, etc.) they are indistinguishable.
Why is that a problem for physics? Why isn't it a problem for the notion of "identity"?
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:04 pm If they are real entities wouldn't they have be different in some way?
You mean other than an electron's different location in spacetime? A location very close to the previous one where it was observed.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:04 pm The only way electrons (or protons, or neutrons, or any other sub-atomic particle) must be different is position. Two cannot be in the same place at the same time.
You are going to have to be a little bit more specific what you mean by the "same" time.

There is no such thing as observing two objects at "the same time". You can observe one, then you can observe the other.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:04 pm As science describes them, they have no intrinsic different attributes. Any two electrons, protons, neutrons, positrons, quarcks, or mesons would be the same, wouldn't they?
You really don't know what "sameness" means.

Uniqueness is guaranteed by the location of an entity in some coordinate scheme.

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.” ― Heraclitus
I'm sorry, I'd love to explain if I thought for a second your questions were ingenuous, but I do not. I think they are typical sophist's irrational skepticism, like Heraclitus or a child stamping his foot and asking, "but why, why, why," when a thing has already been perfectly explained and understood by any honest mind.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:52 pm I'm sorry, I'd love to explain if I thought for a second your questions were ingenuous, but I do not. I think they are typical sophist's irrational skepticism, like Heraclitus or a child stamping his foot and asking, "but why, why, why," when a thing has already been perfectly explained and understood by any honest mind.
Absolutely no explanation is required. Especially since you refused to elaborate on what you mean by "same time".

Empirical evidence speaks for itself. The "honest mind" is full of shit. Here is a computer telling you that A = A is false. A != A is true.

Turns out I am the rational skeptic, and you are the irrational sophist after all..
now-is-not-now.png
now-is-not-now.png (23.97 KiB) Viewed 1571 times
Post Reply