The Total Equality Paradox

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no totality equality as x=y necessitates the difference of x and y as x=x and y=y. Thus equality is the connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality both x and y share. This results in a paradox as there is no total equality but this absence of total equality is something all things share thus total equality exists.

[Walker]

This A ≠ that A.

The reason being: As with sexing, that’s because the pronouns This and that make all the difference. (That’s a joke)

[alan1000]

There is no totality equality as x=y necessitates the difference of x and y as x=x and y=y. Thus equality is the connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality both x and y share. This results in a paradox as there is no total equality but this absence of total equality is something all things share thus total equality exists.

I always follow your hypotheses with great interest. You clearly reject the Dedekind/Peano axioms of arithmetic and the ZF axioms of set theory (which, taken together, determine all of mathematical science). Tell me, what alternative formulations are you offering? (Sorry, I know I'm talking to a machine...)

[Sculptor]

There is no totality equality as x=y necessitates the difference of x and y as x=x and y=y. Thus equality is the connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality both x and y share. This results in a paradox as there is no total equality but this absence of total equality is something all things share thus total equality exists.

A=A is a model. It can never be reality.
What next?

[Skip]

equality is the connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality both x and y share.

That's it. There is no paradox in the statement x=y in the context of -----
A mother cares for all of her children equally.
Oranges are $.50 a piece.
All restaurants must abide by the same health code.
All citizens are equal under the law.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no totality equality as x=y necessitates the difference of x and y as x=x and y=y. Thus equality is the connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality both x and y share. This results in a paradox as there is no total equality but this absence of total equality is something all things share thus total equality exists.

I always follow your hypotheses with great interest. You clearly reject the Dedekind/Peano axioms of arithmetic and the ZF axioms of set theory (which, taken together, determine all of mathematical science). Tell me, what alternative formulations are you offering? (Sorry, I know I'm talking to a machine...)

Axioms are prescribed as starting points to interpret reality. I am questioning the nature of axiom itself given there is no rules for determining what is an axiom and what is not. As such, and I fear this answer will disappoint you, reality is beyond formulations as formulations are only relative and that which is relative is an illusion. But yet again, and I may be talking to myself here, this leads us to another set of paradoxes:

1. Illusions are real in the respect they exist, thus all falsities contain truth.

2. To subjugate all forms to illusions is to result with the absence of form being truth. Given form contrasts to formlessness, one is dependent upon the other thus resulting in forms equating to formlessness (therefore illusion to truth). Through contrast one thing results in another.

3. What is the formula for determining a formula? And what is the formula for this? And the formula for this? So on and so forth. To avoid an infinite regress we have to accept a formula on its terms alone thus leaving it as self-referential. The problem, at least the problem I see, is that leads us with a formula that means nothing because it means everything due to the predicament that the self-referential formula as nothing to contrast to.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no totality equality as x=y necessitates the difference of x and y as x=x and y=y. Thus equality is the connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality both x and y share. This results in a paradox as there is no total equality but this absence of total equality is something all things share thus total equality exists.

A=A is a model. It can never be reality.
What next?

Yet models exist and as existing are a reality.

[Eodnhoj7]

equality is the connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality both x and y share.

That's it. There is no paradox in the statement x=y in the context of -----
A mother cares for all of her children equally.
Oranges are $.50 a piece.
All restaurants must abide by the same health code.
All citizens are equal under the law.

Is "it"?

1. If a mother cares for each distinct child equally she is not equally treating them given each child has specific needs that differ per child.

2. The orange is not the formation of a coin, ie the formation of a number, for if it where then the 50 cent orange equates to a 50 cent gumball. This equates to a 50 cent amount of coal. This equates to a 50 cent etc. In equating through a number, ie the coin and all objects the coin entails, the orange equates to an infinite regress of things and potential things thus resulting in both the orange and the 50 cents being indefinite by nature.

3. All restaurants have differing challenges in regards to following the health code thus approach it differently.

4. Same argumental form as point 3.


But to see it from you perspective then equality occurs across differences and as such to say total equality is to say that a quality underlies all things.

[Sculptor]

There is no totality equality as x=y necessitates the difference of x and y as x=x and y=y. Thus equality is the connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality both x and y share. This results in a paradox as there is no total equality but this absence of total equality is something all things share thus total equality exists.

A=A is a model. It can never be reality.
What next?

Yet models exist and as existing are a reality.

Superman exists but he is not real.

[Skip]

1. If a mother cares for each distinct child equally she is not equally treating them given each child has specific needs that differ per child.

Not at all. Yet again, you are confusing equality [in the context of the "connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality" that they share. I.e. that of being the children of the same mother. If she cares for them equally, she gives each of them what they specifically need.

2. The orange is not the formation of a coin, ie the formation of a number, for if it where then the 50 cent orange equates to a 50 cent gumball.

That is totally irrelevant to the fact that all of the oranges in that display are equal in price.

3. All restaurants have differing challenges in regards to following the health code thus approach it differently.

Nobody gives a damn what their individual problems are. The code applies to all of them equally.

4. Same argumental form as point 3.

Your argument is simply the refusal to understand what equality in a common context means.

But to see it from you perspective then equality occurs across differences and as such to say total equality is to say that a quality underlies all things.

Equality is provisional, situational and limited to a given context.

[Agent Smith]

There is no totality equality as x=y necessitates the difference of x and y as x=x and y=y. Thus equality is the connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality both x and y share. This results in a paradox as there is no total equality but this absence of total equality is something all things share thus total equality exists.

After having read your other thread on equivocation, I sympathize with your view on the question of equality. However, you need to look at it from a mathematical perspective but that's onpy because it works for me - I' not the brightest of bulbs on the chandelier.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. If a mother cares for each distinct child equally she is not equally treating them given each child has specific needs that differ per child.

Not at all. Yet again, you are confusing equality [in the context of the "connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality" that they share. I.e. that of being the children of the same mother. If she cares for them equally, she gives each of them what they specifically need.

2. The orange is not the formation of a coin, ie the formation of a number, for if it where then the 50 cent orange equates to a 50 cent gumball.

That is totally irrelevant to the fact that all of the oranges in that display are equal in price.

3. All restaurants have differing challenges in regards to following the health code thus approach it differently.

Nobody gives a damn what their individual problems are. The code applies to all of them equally.

4. Same argumental form as point 3.

Your argument is simply the refusal to understand what equality in a common context means.

But to see it from you perspective then equality occurs across differences and as such to say total equality is to say that a quality underlies all things.

Equality is provisional, situational and limited to a given context.

1. And what they need differs due to time and space thus an absence of equality occurs.

2. Yet price is a phenomenon which underlies multiple phenomena thus the price is the same for two or more distinctly seperate things. Two or more distinctly separate things are not equal except through price thus price as equivocating two or more distinctly seperate things results in one price meaning many things. This one meaning many results in the one being contradictory given the many is a series of distinctions and the distinctions are not equal.

3. The application of the code is relative to the distinct problems of the restaurant and as such no two restaurants are treated the same. The application of the code is the code and where the applications are different so is the code. You are arguing the code is the same for everyone and I am questioning that statement given the code manifests itself differently per restaurant.

4. No I am stating that there are two sides to the same coin. Equality is the sharing of qualities, yet not all qualities are shared so total equality does not exist. The paradox with this is the fact that all phenomena share the quality of distinctness, ie absence of similarities, thus all phenomena are equal through this quality. Total equality is a paradox.

[Eodnhoj7]

A=A is a model. It can never be reality.
What next?

Yet models exist and as existing are a reality.

Superman exists but he is not real.

He exists as an idea and is real as an idea.

[Sculptor]

Yet models exist and as existing are a reality.

Superman exists but he is not real.

He exists as an idea and is real as an idea.

I think you seem to have a casual relationship with the truth and reality.

[Eodnhoj7]

Superman exists but he is not real.

He exists as an idea and is real as an idea.

I think you seem to have a casual relationship with the truth and reality.

Truth exists and reality is true by nature of its existence.