.

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 »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:46 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 7:04 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.

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."
Yes, of course for A=A is mean anything it has to be a basically vacuous statement.
Such as a cat is a cat. Meh.
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.
No. Except for the universe, there is no thing that is not also something else. An apple is also a fruit. The only thing that occupies a set of itself is the universe. A quark is also a sub atomic particle.

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.
If that IS the case, then why does the expression include TWO As? I can't think of any use for this.

That's what I mean by, "A is A."
"A" would be quite enough. A is an example of other things called A too. Saying A=A still does not make sense.

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.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 12:55 pm Yes, of course for A=A is mean anything it has to be a basically vacuous statement.
Such as a cat is a cat. Meh.
Care to tell us how you measure "vacuousness" ?

Explain why "a cat is a cat" vacuous, but, "now is not now" is not vacuous.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 12:55 pm Yes, of course for A=A is mean anything it has to be a basically vacuous statement.
Such as a cat is a cat. Meh.
Just to make it clear what I mean for anyone who might follow this discussion, not necessarily to you, Sculptor.

It is not, "A=A," but "A is A," and it is, all by itself, a vacuous tautology. It is not as a statement that it matters, however, but as the fundamental premise of reason. It's significance is, a thing is what it is and not anything else and any proposition that implies that anything is other than that is a contradiction and untrue.

Aristotle's emphasis on, "A is A," as the foundation of his logic was the same. The significance is not that "A is A," is true, but that any statement that says, "A is not A," or "A is B," where "B," is anything other than, "A," cannot be true. It is the heart of the law of non-contradiction.

I'm not making an argument here, just explaining what I mean.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:02 pm The significance is not that "A is A," is true, but that any statement that says, "A is not A," or "A is B," where "B," is anything other than, "A," cannot be true. It is the heart of the law of non-contradiction.
Bullshit.

"Now is not Now" is a true statement.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:02 pm I'm not making an argument here, just explaining what I mean.
You don't seem to know what you mean. Seeming as I have a counter-example so handy.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sophists Among Us

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:19 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:02 pm The significance is not that "A is A," is true, but that any statement that says, "A is not A," or "A is B," where "B," is anything other than, "A," cannot be true. It is the heart of the law of non-contradiction.
"Now is not Now" is a true statement.
Sophists intentionally misuse the mechanics of reason or logic to put over lies. They are not, "mistakes," because the sophist knows what he is saying is not true.

"Now is not now," is a typical lie of a sophist. It is well known and has a name, "equivocation," a deliberate ambiguous statement meant to evade the truth or put over a lie.

No one uses the word, "now," as implied by the statement, "now is not now." The statement is meant to imply that, "now," means, "at the moment of speaking," which is over the moment one finishes speaking, but no one every means that by, "now."

The idea that, "now," means some mystical, "point in time," is shear nonsense. All time references always refer to some duration of time. When anyone says, "I have a headache now," they do not mean they have a headache for a single instant while saying it, they mean they are having a headache while they are saying it and continuing after they say it. "Now," never means a single infinitesimal instant, but some range of time differentiated form all others preceding and following it and nothing more. Now can mean, "this second," "this minute," "this day," "this era," or any other period of time relative to those preceding and following it.

Now is always now, whichever specific one is referred to.

Don't fall for the sophist's lies.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Sophists Among Us

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm Sophists intentionally misuse the mechanics of reason or logic to put over lies. They are not, "mistakes," because the sophist knows what he is saying is not true.
This is a blatant lie.

Now ( Thu Jul 15 16:28:35 UTC 2021) is not Now ( Thu Jul 15 16:28:39 UTC 2021 )
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm "Now is not now," is a typical lie of a sophist. It is well known and has a name, "equivocation," a deliberate ambiguous statement meant to evade the truth or put over a lie.
This now is not the same as this now.

If there's any deliberate ambiguity or obscurantism here it's yours. Attempting to drag the intellect of anybody reading into the mud.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm No one uses the word, "now," as implied by the statement, "now is not now." The statement is meant to imply that, "now," means, "at the moment of speaking," which is over the moment one finishes speaking, but no one every means that by, "now."
Yes, idiot.

I begin speaking. I say now. I end speaking.
I begin speaking again. I say now. I end speaking.

Now is not now.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm The idea that, "now," means some mystical, "point in time," is shear nonsense.
I didn't say anything about mystical points in time. I mean NOW being different from NOW.

It is always NOW, and yet NOW is not NOW.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm All time references always refer to some duration of time.
OK, so what duration of time is "NOW"?
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm When anyone says, "I have a headache now," they do not mean they have a headache for a single instant while saying it, they mean they are having a headache while they are saying it and continuing after they say it. "Now," never means a single infinitesimal instant, but some range of time
"Some range of time", eh? Obscurantist!
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm differentiated form all others preceding and following it and nothing more. Now can mean, "this second," "this minute," "this day," "this era," or any other period of time relative to those preceding and following it.
So "now" can mean anything then. It could mean an infinitesimal; or an infinite duration of time.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm Now is always now, whichever specific one is referred to.
Obviously! Idiot.

Now and Now refer to different nows.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Skepdick »

This is really not difficult to understand, man!

Now is now is false.
1 is 1 is true.

Aristotle got it wrong. Any logic devoid of time is vacuous. That includes Mathematics.
now-is-now.png
now-is-now.png (13.26 KiB) Viewed 1579 times
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sophists Among Us

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 5:38 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm Sophists intentionally misuse the mechanics of reason or logic to put over lies. They are not, "mistakes," because the sophist knows what he is saying is not true.
This is a blatant lie.

Now ( Thu Jul 15 16:28:35 UTC 2021) is not Now ( Thu Jul 15 16:28:39 UTC 2021 )
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm "Now is not now," is a typical lie of a sophist. It is well known and has a name, "equivocation," a deliberate ambiguous statement meant to evade the truth or put over a lie.
This now is not the same as this now.

If there's any deliberate ambiguity or obscurantism here it's yours. Attempting to drag the intellect of anybody reading into the mud.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm No one uses the word, "now," as implied by the statement, "now is not now." The statement is meant to imply that, "now," means, "at the moment of speaking," which is over the moment one finishes speaking, but no one every means that by, "now."
Yes, idiot.

I begin speaking. I say now. I end speaking.
I begin speaking again. I say now. I end speaking.

Now is not now.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm The idea that, "now," means some mystical, "point in time," is shear nonsense.
I didn't say anything about mystical points in time. I mean NOW being different from NOW.

It is always NOW, and yet NOW is not NOW.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm All time references always refer to some duration of time.
OK, so what duration of time is "NOW"?
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm When anyone says, "I have a headache now," they do not mean they have a headache for a single instant while saying it, they mean they are having a headache while they are saying it and continuing after they say it. "Now," never means a single infinitesimal instant, but some range of time
"Some range of time", eh? Obscurantist!
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm differentiated form all others preceding and following it and nothing more. Now can mean, "this second," "this minute," "this day," "this era," or any other period of time relative to those preceding and following it.
So "now" can mean anything then. It could mean an infinitesimal; or an infinite duration of time.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:27 pm Now is always now, whichever specific one is referred to.
Obviously! Idiot.

Now and Now refer to different nows.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the evidence.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Sophists Among Us

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 6:05 pm And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the evidence.
The evidence that you are wrong? Obviously!

Now is now is false.
1 is 1 is true.

I trust my eyes more than I trust your rhetoric.
now-is-now.png
now-is-now.png (13.26 KiB) Viewed 1575 times
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 3:33 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:24 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 4:41 am
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.
If it is an absolutely absolute that relative absolutes exists then it is absolute that absolute absolutes exist.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 5:52 pm
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.
If everything that exists is unique but this uniqueness has an underlying source or form which is the same across all phenomenon then everything is not unique because of this common source or form. This underlying source or form is part of everything and it is not unique as it is branches across all things thus manifesting one same phenomenon as existing.

The grounding in a common source or form necessitates a sameness which is universal and this sameness does not have unique qualities.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:40 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 5:52 pm
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.
If everything that exists is unique but this uniqueness has an underlying source or form ...
There is no,"underlyihg source or form." That is pure mystic platonic nonsense.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 3:33 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:24 pm

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.
If it is an absolutely absolute that relative absolutes exists then it is absolute that absolute absolutes exist.
Point is your 'absolute' is a relative-absolute because it has to be grounded on and relative to you or other humans. If not, how else?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 1:18 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:40 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 5:52 pm
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.
If everything that exists is unique but this uniqueness has an underlying source or form ...
There is no,"underlyihg source or form." That is pure mystic platonic nonsense.
False. Uniqueness requires division. Division requires a common source through that which is divided. A branching of phenomena, along a timeline, necessitates a common point from which the phenomena branch.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:15 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 3:33 am
But not that

It is an absolutely-absolute that relative absolutes exists, unless you are claiming as if you are a God.
If it is an absolutely absolute that relative absolutes exists then it is absolute that absolute absolutes exist.
Point is your 'absolute' is a relative-absolute because it has to be grounded on and relative to you or other humans. If not, how else?
You are missing the paradox. In stating the relative absolute is grounded on humans is to make an absolute statement which is not grounded on humans as it defines human behavior by being a principle which precedes human behavior. There are relative absolutes necessitates this being an absolute statement if entirely true.

Dually, to say everything is grounded in human observation is to make a human observation which is relative an not absolute. As relative and not absolute you cannot state that everything is grounded in human observation.
Post Reply