Right. So you're not sure what you're doing when performing addition?
P = -P
Re: P = -P
I am adding one phenomenon and another. Tell me how one phenomenon and itself does not show multiple phenomena?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:59 amRight. So you're not sure what you're doing when performing addition?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: P = -P
So you're not adding a "phenomenon" to itself?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 8:24 pmI am adding one phenomenon and another. Tell me how one phenomenon and itself does not show multiple phenomena?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:59 amRight. So you're not sure what you're doing when performing addition?
Re: P = -P
Adding one phenomenon to itself shows multiple distinct phenomena thus to say adding it to itself is a contradiction.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 8:46 pmSo you're not adding a "phenomenon" to itself?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 8:24 pmI am adding one phenomenon and another. Tell me how one phenomenon and itself does not show multiple phenomena?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:59 am
Right. So you're not sure what you're doing when performing addition?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: P = -P
So when you're doing addition, you're not "adding a phenomenon to itself."Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 8:51 pmAdding one phenomenon to itself shows multiple distinct phenomena thus to say adding it to itself is a contradiction.
Re: P = -P
Yet a thing and itself is the same as addition.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 9:40 pmSo when you're doing addition, you're not "adding a phenomenon to itself."
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: P = -P
This is simply you not understanding normal language usage.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:55 pmYet a thing and itself is the same as addition.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 9:40 pmSo when you're doing addition, you're not "adding a phenomenon to itself."
Re: P = -P
This is simply you appealing to normative semantics. There's no such thing.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:31 am This is simply you not understanding normal language usage.
What's the "normal language use" of "understand"? How does "understanding" obtain?
Re: P = -P
"And" is addition...there is nothing else to understand.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:31 amThis is simply you not understanding normal language usage.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:55 pmYet a thing and itself is the same as addition.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 9:40 pm
So when you're doing addition, you're not "adding a phenomenon to itself."
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: P = -P
When we talk about "a thing 'and itself'" we're not talking about addition. So if that's the way you're reading it, you're not understanding normal language usage.
Re: P = -P
False, you are failing to look deeper into the language. Something "and" something is addition.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 11:21 pmWhen we talk about "a thing 'and itself'" we're not talking about addition. So if that's the way you're reading it, you're not understanding normal language usage.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 6:38 pm"And" is addition...there is nothing else to understand.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:31 am
This is simply you not understanding normal language usage.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: P = -P
lol--this solely hinges on what people have in mind when they say something.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:40 amFalse, you are failing to look deeper into the language. Something "and" something is addition.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 11:21 pmWhen we talk about "a thing 'and itself'" we're not talking about addition. So if that's the way you're reading it, you're not understanding normal language usage.
Re: P = -P
So identity is subject to interpretation then?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:18 pmlol--this solely hinges on what people have in mind when they say something.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:40 amFalse, you are failing to look deeper into the language. Something "and" something is addition.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 11:21 pm
When we talk about "a thing 'and itself'" we're not talking about addition. So if that's the way you're reading it, you're not understanding normal language usage.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: P = -P
I see you lost the ability to follow the conversation again.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 6:34 pmSo identity is subject to interpretation then?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:18 pmlol--this solely hinges on what people have in mind when they say something.
Re: P = -P
False you said: "lol--this solely hinges on what people have in mind when they say something."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 7:31 pmI see you lost the ability to follow the conversation again.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 6:34 pmSo identity is subject to interpretation then?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:18 pm
lol--this solely hinges on what people have in mind when they say something.
So I asked you: "So identity is subject to interpretation then?"