jj

Eh? The value of "vulcan" is "false". false=false.

You can likewise make the value 'does not exist' = 'does not exist'
or whatever.

The equation holds. It seems to me you're simply failing to abstract the equation properly.

PJPSYCO

Well, I'd complicated the concept of existance a bit more. It's consistancy of idea, and relevance of idea that makes an object(or concept).

Uniqueness does come from relevance but is not the exclusive idea nor is it explicitly implied(why I gave the concept a different name). If we use relevance we are forced into materialism(or at least the evidentiary thought processes that dominate it).
*****
The rejection of group existensialism is usually becuase it follows the same rules as materialism, but insists that the universe is a fantasy (ie nothing to really talk about but you and me).
*****
Uniquness comes first from the part in relevence that suggets that if we define an object to have some trait, the trait is only reqired if it actually is used in the identification of the object. In this case the idea is that there is a billion objects with all of the same definition except that we have numbered them. What does this identification number give us? Since it is nothing for what we know of the universe, uniquness(in the case of the rejection of superfluous numbering) is assumed for what we know of the universe.

The other 'uniquness' is just a problem in the consistancy in a section of definition. Agian, by the rule of relevance we tend to reject contradictory parts of a definition. It you define something to be blue and not blue. Then the definition will be redefined to not have anything to due with its blueness. If it's blueness is declared as a required part of the definition(like its the whole thing). By the rules of relevance, the object will then be declared void(if it's the whole thing) or mute(if it's just important) and therein nonexistant(or at least not what you are meaning).

Witt

Witt :
It's my opinion that:
But, Vulcan=Vulcan is false, where Vulcan is the planet (hypothesized by astronomers) in our solar system that is needed to explain via Newtonian physics, the unusual orbit of Mercury.

jj:

Eh? The value of "vulcan" is "false". false=false.

Vulcan=false, is syntatic nonsense. It is not a well formed formula.

Truth and falsity apply to statements only not to physical things.

jj: You can likewise make the value 'does not exist' = 'does not exist'
or whatever.

Evidently you use the term 'value' differently.

jj: The equation holds. It seems to me you're simply failing to abstract the equation properly.

What do you mean by 'value' and 'to abstract' in these contexts?

Witt

Bilbo

SlateGreySky writes:

----------------------------------------------------
Fichte notes that "A=A" is a vacuous truth of logic which will not do as a first principle, because even though it seems to hold as an identity statement, one must first posit an "A" with which to begin.
----------------------------------------------------


I think this pretheoretic intuition is sound. Metaphysics and formal modeling should be distinguished, if not separated. The idea behind taking "A=A" as a logical truth is reasonable enough (where “A” is presumably an individual term denoting some countable object in the domain of the quantifiers), but as a “Foundation”, or a metaphysical “First Principle”, it will hardly suffice.

The reason we can regard an equivalence of this kind as an appropriate, yet vacuous logical truth, is because the problem of individuation (ie the countable thing or object that is permitted to be the value of the individual term) has presumably already been settled prior to formalization of the natural language analog. But as you suggest via Fichte, thinghood is not conferred *by* the logic.

So the metaphysics of individuation and identity are related in such a way that its not easy to answer questions pertaining to one, without at the same time begging questions regarding the other.

“No entity without identity” Quine informs us, but it seem that Geach, Barcan and others have an equally plausible case that we can have “No identity without entity”.

So a theory of identity would seem to be a necessary, but insufficient condition for doing metaphysics.



Regards,

Bilbo

Peter Soderqvist

TO PRIMAL

Soderqvist1: yes the moment has no objective time according to Einstein's special relativity theory 1905! Before, now and after, or simultaneity have no universal meaning! For instance, suppose that I am traveling in a space rocket at 90% of light speed, and I light a candle, the photons will reach my back wall and my front wall simultaneously, and my rocket's weigh let's say 10 tones, because the rocket is at rest according to my vantage point, but it probably weigh 15 tones and the light's photons reaches my back wall first, because my rocket traveling forward according to your vantage point! Hence what the rocket weigh and at which moment in time photons reaches the front wall, or the back wall have no universal meaning! The observer has a unique position in both quantum physics, and special relativity!

jj

You seem determined to argue that you can change the value of a variable between usage on right and left.

You argue that if the variable doesn't exist, the equation is meaningless.

All I see happening is that you wind up with "null = null" or "nonexistance = nonexistance" or "false = false".

You're simply abstracting the wrong value for the variable. I really think those words ought to suffice.

The question of existance is unrelated. That seems to be what you're upset about, and it's a different bird altogether.

jj

There is no reason to restrict 'A' to countable, etc. All we have to be is consistant in what we call 'A'. All variables must have a field, and all operators a definition.

All A=A says is that an abstracted idea 'A' is the same as itself.

John Page

jj:

How can you demonstrate that something is the same as itself? (This is a serious question).

Cheers, John

Bilbo

jj writes:


----------------------------------
There is no reason to restrict 'A' to countable, etc.
----------------------------------


Variables, in this context, stand for the things specified in natural language by singular terms. And of course, not all nouns or noun phrases of natural language are singular terms.

Take the standard (objectual) interpretation of quantification for example: "There is at least one x", "for all x" "For each and every element of the domain" etc.


----------------------------------
All A=A says is that an abstracted idea 'A' is the same as itself.
----------------------------------


Perhaps it would be beneficial to get explicit about the symbolism (something I presumed, was understood). "A=A" isn't a wff of the logic i'm refering to, since that sign is flanked only by either lower case variables from the end of the alphabet, or lower case constants from the begining of the alphabet. So then, "y=x" specifies a relation "between individuals" (*wink*), rather than predicates a property of a propery.

In any case, the point of my original post (as well as this pedantic diversion) is that SlateGreySky had a good point regarding Fichte and the logic of identity, and its relation to metaphysics (see the previous discussion). Use of the logic presupposes that the metaphysical issue of "entity" and "individual" has already been settled/hedged-out, prior to evaluating relations between the symbols.


Regards,

Bilbo.

jj

By definition. If it's not the same, it's not "itself".

"things changing" do not affect this, either. If two things diverge, they aren't/weren't the same thing. (i.e. 2 atoms, each decaying randomly, weren't both 'a' to start with)