Peter Soderqvist

An abstract object like A is equal to itself, therefore, A = A, it is a static property! A material object like an apple changes from one moment to next, therefore an apple is not equal to itself! Since an abstract object doesn't have this dynamic process, immature – mature – old – rotten – faded away, therefore, an immature apple is not a rotten one!

Primal

Another way of stating the principle is A is A.

The 'is' indicates present tense. I realize objects change, Aristotle likewise realized that. Hence what it really means is that an object "is" equal to itself. Meaning at any given moment, an object equals itself.

Peter Soderqvist

TO PRIMAL

Do you mean that, an object is identical to itself at any given moment, but gets a new identity in the next moment, because objects change between these moments? If so, how long is the time span of A = A in that moment? It appears more to me that the present time is an anthropomorphic concept, without physical meaning, since a moment needs a time freeze, but there is no time freeze, and for the same reason, there is no moment either!

John Page

Hi Primal!
I don't understand the difference - IMO all formulae are conceptual.
But logical deduction, for example, uses equivocation to determine unknown values. The LNC is equivocation, A=T or ~T.

(BTW, if you are saying that equivocation is T & ~T, please point out where such equivocation occurs in the examples).

Cheers, John

Peter Soderqvist

It appears to me that; every possible variants of Vulcan on the left side of the equal sign, has itself as counterpart on the right side. For instance, Mr. Spook in Star Trek is a Vulcan, and has thus itself as counter part on the other side of the equal sign, and same it is with Vulcan the roman god of fire and metalworking! Therefore, Vulcan = Vulcan is truth as abstract concept!

Primal

In a sense yes, though it's not an object getting a new identity, as then it would in a sense be a new object though not radically new. The object also is not "getting" anything, that's misleading, it is merely changing.


A moment is not really a concept that can defined in a noncicucular manner. The meaning is obvious. Like the definition of 1, big, fast or round.


Why does a moment need a time freeze?


Well according to what you are saying, there are then no moments and hence no time.

cobrashock

Or it could be said that A=A can never be equal because A has to be defined in a language based logic system and that defined wording can never be identical. So the definition describes something, even a proper name or a imaginary subject. It depends on how far you want to persuit the definition I would say because the descriptions could go out to infinity. It also implys that a truth value can not be determined.

I think the confusion lies with math based systems and that could/should also be shown to be (A=A) in math.

With language based systems it really needs to be shown as
(A)=(A) and the quanity of (A) needs a definition, at least on one side of the equation. Otherwise it would be a worthless statement. Note also that the word "equation" has a different meaning in logic based systems than in math based systems. "Equates to" may be a better term but it's not perfect either. And that's the problem we have with language now isn't it?
cobrashock

Primal

Well you don't need a definition to understand what is meant though. When you get down to the fundamental level of words (existence, identity, causality, motion, nothing, etc) there really are no definitions save the circular. However that is for the most part irrelevant, as meaning does not require definition.

Again it simply means every object is equal to itself. That's what A means A expresses, not that objects are frozen in time nor that at the empirical level the actual symbol A is equal to the other symbol A. Those two latter positions are somewhat of a strawman.

And what are the people saying anyways? That an object can equal more then itself at any time? That an object can equal its mutually exclusive opposite....that we think in square circles?

cobrashock

Primal- Your right on! That "common" language brought a end to the language in logic systems, as advocated by G.E. Moore and in late life Wittgenstein in my opinion. I am a HUGE fan of Bertrand Russell and by his own admission this common language brought a end to his Quanitative Analyisis.(sp?)
But as I scan early Greek philosophy I still see analogys of Nouns describing adjectives or verbs defining nouns and so on. Still more wrong "stuff" with the Greek philosophys IMO,and that's exactly why we need to study that stuff, so we don't repeat the same mistakes.
So A can never equal A in language based logic systems.
cobrashock

Witt

cobrashock:
Primal- Your right on! That "common" language brought a end to the language in logic systems, as advocated by G.E. Moore and in late life Wittgenstein in my opinion. I am a HUGE fan of Bertrand Russell and by his own admission this common language brought a end to his Quanitative Analyisis.(sp?)

What end..to his Quanitative Analyisis.(sp?) ..are you referring to?

The Logicism of: Frege, Russell, early Wittgenstein, Quine, Carnap, is alive and well, imo.

cobrashock: So A can never equal A in language based logic systems.

I don't agree. A=A is alway true iff A exists!

What language does not have a 'logical structure'?
Logic is at the base of all languages.

Witt