Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A is A

21st_Century_Occultist
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 12:42:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
93,

Hi there!

Saw this touched upon in a different topic in a way I did not take to, haha. I have no idea what the nature of this forum's members are yet, so sorry if this is a horribly banal topic.

Everything relies on the axiom that A is A. I am friends with many doctorate level philosophers (don't get me started) and most agree that the laws of thought were discovered, not created. I happen to agree. The laws of thought are objective, meaning that they are true no matter if we realize them or accept them. If no intelligent life existed, A would still be itself, even if not realized (let's not get off on whether any objective reality really exists or not right now).

The best part is that nobody can argue A being non-A, because to even debate, to even communicate, hell to even think A must be itself, otherwise everything is gibberish. Beyond even this, I do not think there could be any reality at all if A could be non-A. Everything would be in a state of constant fluctuation, nothing would be stable. I don't mean the chaos that quantum physics is uncovering, I mean absolute chaos to where the atomic level could not even exist. If hydrogen could be lithium at the same time, absolute chaos.

There is always a catch though. Let us try arguing WHY A is A. A is A, well obviously because it is. A, by default is itself. It cannot be logically supported, it is the foundational law of logic! The problem is that this method of thinking actually violates logic. To say A is A "just cause" or because it is "self evident" is, itself, fallacious. Logic proves itself illogical, entering an eternal paradox that shakes the foundations of all reality!

Blows my mind, friends. Blows my mind...

93, 93/93.
The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 8:24:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 12:42:57 AM, 21st_Century_Occultist wrote:
93,

Hi there!

Saw this touched upon in a different topic in a way I did not take to, haha. I have no idea what the nature of this forum's members are yet, so sorry if this is a horribly banal topic.

Everything relies on the axiom that A is A. I am friends with many doctorate level philosophers (don't get me started) and most agree that the laws of thought were discovered, not created. I happen to agree. The laws of thought are objective, meaning that they are true no matter if we realize them or accept them. If no intelligent life existed, A would still be itself, even if not realized (let's not get off on whether any objective reality really exists or not right now).

The best part is that nobody can argue A being non-A, because to even debate, to even communicate, hell to even think A must be itself, otherwise everything is gibberish. Beyond even this, I do not think there could be any reality at all if A could be non-A. Everything would be in a state of constant fluctuation, nothing would be stable. I don't mean the chaos that quantum physics is uncovering, I mean absolute chaos to where the atomic level could not even exist. If hydrogen could be lithium at the same time, absolute chaos.

There is always a catch though. Let us try arguing WHY A is A. A is A, well obviously because it is. A, by default is itself. It cannot be logically supported, it is the foundational law of logic! The problem is that this method of thinking actually violates logic. To say A is A "just cause" or because it is "self evident" is, itself, fallacious. Logic proves itself illogical, entering an eternal paradox that shakes the foundations of all reality!

Blows my mind, friends. Blows my mind...

93, 93/93.

Actually, if something is really self-evident, then that's not a fallacious reason.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 8:36:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What we see in A = A is actually an act of categorizing. However, that is obscured by the fact that the two objects which are categorized are extremely similar, to the point where we automatically, unthinkingly refer to them as 'the same thing', when really what we mean is that they both refer to a common 'symbol'.

This is what it means to say that it is an axiom; it is not a law, somehow present in the universe, but a rule regarding human communication. Without being able to recognize multiple objects with similar features as applicable to human bias, we would not be able to communicate. Therefore, it is very important that we are able to recognize similar objects such as the two 'A's in that example. It is seen as a 'base' law of 'logic' because if someone were not coherent enough even to differentiate between the two 'A's, communication with them would be impossible.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
21st_Century_Occultist
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 1:08:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 8:36:36 AM, sdavio wrote:
What we see in A = A is actually an act of categorizing. However, that is obscured by the fact that the two objects which are categorized are extremely similar, to the point where we automatically, unthinkingly refer to them as 'the same thing', when really what we mean is that they both refer to a common 'symbol'.

This is what it means to say that it is an axiom; it is not a law, somehow present in the universe, but a rule regarding human communication. Without being able to recognize multiple objects with similar features as applicable to human bias, we would not be able to communicate. Therefore, it is very important that we are able to recognize similar objects such as the two 'A's in that example. It is seen as a 'base' law of 'logic' because if someone were not coherent enough even to differentiate between the two 'A's, communication with them would be impossible.

Of course, as stated you could not even argue A as non-A without being held to the idea that A is A. Techinically all that needs to be said is "A", adding "is A" simply elaborates. But this rule of communication applies without communication at all. Any element will be itself whether or not intelligent life is around to recognize it, existence itself requires internal consistency. The problem is this internal consistency is almost a blue print or imposed rule. You can't go further back than A being itself because that's the fundamental axiom of thought itself. This doesn't mean the law of identity is proven.
The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion
21st_Century_Occultist
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 1:09:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It has to be a law, beyond communication, for us to even exist and evolve to question it.
The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 7:28:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't see why the logic of A=A is so hard to figure out.

A=A, because all characteristics of the left A are the same for the A on the right.

A hydrogen atom isn't a hydrogen atom "just because". It's a hydrogen atom because "both" hydrogen atoms each have one proton and one electron, and "they" share the same properties.

A proton isn't a proton "just because". It's a proton because its mass and charge are equal to a proton.

To look at what something is, if everything correlates with something else, it therefore must be that thing.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
21st_Century_Occultist
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 8:26:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A = A isn't hard to understand at all, and understanding is not necessary at all for it to be true. That is the magic of objectivity.
The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion
21st_Century_Occultist
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 8:28:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Doesn't even need to be A! 0337 = 0337, basic math. Of course if you accept 0^0=1 you also accept that math is flawed as well.
The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 10:33:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 1:08:07 PM, 21st_Century_Occultist wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:36:36 AM, sdavio wrote:
What we see in A = A is actually an act of categorizing. However, that is obscured by the fact that the two objects which are categorized are extremely similar, to the point where we automatically, unthinkingly refer to them as 'the same thing', when really what we mean is that they both refer to a common 'symbol'.

This is what it means to say that it is an axiom; it is not a law, somehow present in the universe, but a rule regarding human communication. Without being able to recognize multiple objects with similar features as applicable to human bias, we would not be able to communicate. Therefore, it is very important that we are able to recognize similar objects such as the two 'A's in that example. It is seen as a 'base' law of 'logic' because if someone were not coherent enough even to differentiate between the two 'A's, communication with them would be impossible.

Of course, as stated you could not even argue A as non-A without being held to the idea that A is A. Techinically all that needs to be said is "A", adding "is A" simply elaborates. But this rule of communication applies without communication at all. Any element will be itself whether or not intelligent life is around to recognize it, existence itself requires internal consistency. The problem is this internal consistency is almost a blue print or imposed rule. You can't go further back than A being itself because that's the fundamental axiom of thought itself. This doesn't mean the law of identity is proven.

The only function of this rule in the A = A form is in regard to human interaction, as a 'reminder' to be consistent; if it is to apply to things 'in themselves' we must remove the otherwise redundant repetition, and what we end up with is simply an act of acknowledging something taken in through sense data. It's saying that the definitional border we draw around an object or concept should stay consistent, otherwise this reduces basically to Descartes' cogito ero sum if we must use it as any sort of rule at all.

How do you know that existence itself requires internal consistency?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 10:37:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 8:36:36 AM, sdavio wrote:
What we see in A = A is actually an act of categorizing. However, that is obscured by the fact that the two objects which are categorized are extremely similar, to the point where we automatically, unthinkingly refer to them as 'the same thing', when really what we mean is that they both refer to a common 'symbol'.

This is what it means to say that it is an axiom; it is not a law, somehow present in the universe, but a rule regarding human communication. Without being able to recognize multiple objects with similar features as applicable to human bias, we would not be able to communicate. Therefore, it is very important that we are able to recognize similar objects such as the two 'A's in that example. It is seen as a 'base' law of 'logic' because if someone were not coherent enough even to differentiate between the two 'A's, communication with them would be impossible.

I don't think you understand what logic is.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 10:40:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 10:37:38 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:36:36 AM, sdavio wrote:
What we see in A = A is actually an act of categorizing. However, that is obscured by the fact that the two objects which are categorized are extremely similar, to the point where we automatically, unthinkingly refer to them as 'the same thing', when really what we mean is that they both refer to a common 'symbol'.

This is what it means to say that it is an axiom; it is not a law, somehow present in the universe, but a rule regarding human communication. Without being able to recognize multiple objects with similar features as applicable to human bias, we would not be able to communicate. Therefore, it is very important that we are able to recognize similar objects such as the two 'A's in that example. It is seen as a 'base' law of 'logic' because if someone were not coherent enough even to differentiate between the two 'A's, communication with them would be impossible.

I don't think you understand what logic is.

Why?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 10:46:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 10:40:12 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:37:38 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:36:36 AM, sdavio wrote:
What we see in A = A is actually an act of categorizing. However, that is obscured by the fact that the two objects which are categorized are extremely similar, to the point where we automatically, unthinkingly refer to them as 'the same thing', when really what we mean is that they both refer to a common 'symbol'.

This is what it means to say that it is an axiom; it is not a law, somehow present in the universe, but a rule regarding human communication. Without being able to recognize multiple objects with similar features as applicable to human bias, we would not be able to communicate. Therefore, it is very important that we are able to recognize similar objects such as the two 'A's in that example. It is seen as a 'base' law of 'logic' because if someone were not coherent enough even to differentiate between the two 'A's, communication with them would be impossible.

I don't think you understand what logic is.

Why?

Because of what you wrote. Why else?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 10:48:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 10:46:28 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:40:12 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:37:38 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:36:36 AM, sdavio wrote:
What we see in A = A is actually an act of categorizing. However, that is obscured by the fact that the two objects which are categorized are extremely similar, to the point where we automatically, unthinkingly refer to them as 'the same thing', when really what we mean is that they both refer to a common 'symbol'.

This is what it means to say that it is an axiom; it is not a law, somehow present in the universe, but a rule regarding human communication. Without being able to recognize multiple objects with similar features as applicable to human bias, we would not be able to communicate. Therefore, it is very important that we are able to recognize similar objects such as the two 'A's in that example. It is seen as a 'base' law of 'logic' because if someone were not coherent enough even to differentiate between the two 'A's, communication with them would be impossible.

I don't think you understand what logic is.

Why?

Because of what you wrote. Why else?

Please elaborate on what I got wrong so that I can improve my understanding.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 10:51:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 10:48:24 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:46:28 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:40:12 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:37:38 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:36:36 AM, sdavio wrote:
What we see in A = A is actually an act of categorizing. However, that is obscured by the fact that the two objects which are categorized are extremely similar, to the point where we automatically, unthinkingly refer to them as 'the same thing', when really what we mean is that they both refer to a common 'symbol'.

This is what it means to say that it is an axiom; it is not a law, somehow present in the universe, but a rule regarding human communication. Without being able to recognize multiple objects with similar features as applicable to human bias, we would not be able to communicate. Therefore, it is very important that we are able to recognize similar objects such as the two 'A's in that example. It is seen as a 'base' law of 'logic' because if someone were not coherent enough even to differentiate between the two 'A's, communication with them would be impossible.

I don't think you understand what logic is.

Why?

Because of what you wrote. Why else?

Please elaborate on what I got wrong so that I can improve my understanding.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 11:28:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 10:33:45 PM, sdavio wrote:
How do you know that existence itself requires internal consistency?

Internal consistency means 'free from contradictions'. A contradiction cannot exist, for it incorporates opposing elements which preclude each other from being actualized. Every contradiction reduces down to 'A is not A' which cannot be maintained by existence which must distinguish between that which is and that which is not.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 11:32:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 10:33:45 PM, sdavio wrote:
How do you know that existence itself requires internal consistency?

Basically, a contradiction is something which, to exist, would have to not-exist to fulfill its own criteria of existence.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 12:34:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 11:32:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:33:45 PM, sdavio wrote:
How do you know that existence itself requires internal consistency?

Basically, a contradiction is something which, to exist, would have to not-exist to fulfill its own criteria of existence.

Words like 'criteria' only apply to human understanding though.. Hence they are subjective. It's senseless to talk of objects themselves having criteria.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 12:39:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 12:42:57 AM, 21st_Century_Occultist wrote:
93,

Hi there!

Saw this touched upon in a different topic in a way I did not take to, haha. I have no idea what the nature of this forum's members are yet, so sorry if this is a horribly banal topic.

Everything relies on the axiom that A is A. I am friends with many doctorate level philosophers (don't get me started) and most agree that the laws of thought were discovered, not created. I happen to agree. The laws of thought are objective, meaning that they are true no matter if we realize them or accept them. If no intelligent life existed, A would still be itself, even if not realized (let's not get off on whether any objective reality really exists or not right now).

The best part is that nobody can argue A being non-A, because to even debate, to even communicate, hell to even think A must be itself, otherwise everything is gibberish. Beyond even this, I do not think there could be any reality at all if A could be non-A. Everything would be in a state of constant fluctuation, nothing would be stable. I don't mean the chaos that quantum physics is uncovering, I mean absolute chaos to where the atomic level could not even exist. If hydrogen could be lithium at the same time, absolute chaos.

There is always a catch though. Let us try arguing WHY A is A. A is A, well obviously because it is. A, by default is itself. It cannot be logically supported, it is the foundational law of logic! The problem is that this method of thinking actually violates logic. To say A is A "just cause" or because it is "self evident" is, itself, fallacious. Logic proves itself illogical, entering an eternal paradox that shakes the foundations of all reality!

Blows my mind, friends. Blows my mind...

93, 93/93.

Just because the reasoning is fallacious, doesn't mean the conclusion is false. Even if all of our inferences to show that "A is A" are fallacious, it doesn't follow that "A is A" is false.

Logic may prove itself illogical, but that doesn't mean it's false or faulty I don't think.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 9:07:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 12:34:14 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/29/2013 11:32:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:33:45 PM, sdavio wrote:
How do you know that existence itself requires internal consistency?

Basically, a contradiction is something which, to exist, would have to not-exist to fulfill its own criteria of existence.

Words like 'criteria' only apply to human understanding though.. Hence they are subjective. It's senseless to talk of objects themselves having criteria.

The criteria would correspond to the manifestation required to meet the definition of the contradiction in question. The criteria is merely that which we would recognize as the contradiction. A contradiction incorporates parts that are mutually exclusive with one another, such that a given element is defined in terms of another's absence.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 10:03:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 9:07:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/30/2013 12:34:14 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/29/2013 11:32:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:33:45 PM, sdavio wrote:
How do you know that existence itself requires internal consistency?

Basically, a contradiction is something which, to exist, would have to not-exist to fulfill its own criteria of existence.

Words like 'criteria' only apply to human understanding though.. Hence they are subjective. It's senseless to talk of objects themselves having criteria.

The criteria would correspond to the manifestation required to meet the definition of the contradiction in question. The criteria is merely that which we would recognize as the contradiction. A contradiction incorporates parts that are mutually exclusive with one another, such that a given element is defined in terms of another's absence.

But you still haven't explained how you know objectively that existence itself cannot include contradictions. What the above amounts to is a definition of contradictions - and in subjective terms.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 10:38:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 10:03:54 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/30/2013 9:07:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/30/2013 12:34:14 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/29/2013 11:32:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:33:45 PM, sdavio wrote:
How do you know that existence itself requires internal consistency?

Basically, a contradiction is something which, to exist, would have to not-exist to fulfill its own criteria of existence.

Words like 'criteria' only apply to human understanding though.. Hence they are subjective. It's senseless to talk of objects themselves having criteria.

The criteria would correspond to the manifestation required to meet the definition of the contradiction in question. The criteria is merely that which we would recognize as the contradiction. A contradiction incorporates parts that are mutually exclusive with one another, such that a given element is defined in terms of another's absence.

But you still haven't explained how you know objectively that existence itself cannot include contradictions. What the above amounts to is a definition of contradictions - and in subjective terms.

The definition isn't subjective - it's nessesarily an accurate description of a concept. If the concept had a concrete manifestation, the contradiction would be as described - if it wasn't, it wouldn't be a manifestation of the concept. The definition precludes the possibility of a contradiction existing, since the definition, as defined, is of something that cannot exist.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 10:57:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 10:03:54 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/30/2013 9:07:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/30/2013 12:34:14 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/29/2013 11:32:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:33:45 PM, sdavio wrote:
How do you know that existence itself requires internal consistency?

Basically, a contradiction is something which, to exist, would have to not-exist to fulfill its own criteria of existence.

Words like 'criteria' only apply to human understanding though.. Hence they are subjective. It's senseless to talk of objects themselves having criteria.

The criteria would correspond to the manifestation required to meet the definition of the contradiction in question. The criteria is merely that which we would recognize as the contradiction. A contradiction incorporates parts that are mutually exclusive with one another, such that a given element is defined in terms of another's absence.

But you still haven't explained how you know objectively that existence itself cannot include contradictions. What the above amounts to is a definition of contradictions - and in subjective terms.

What do you mean by 'existence itself' then? I already explained that a contradiction cannot exist insofar as 'existence itself' exists, because a contradiction is defined in terms of its non-existence... its manifestation (existence) would be achieved when it didn't exist as per what 'it' refers to. It wouldn't matter if it were taking place apart from the human mind, nor would it matter if we couldn't interact with such a world. Such a world's 'existence' would be contingent upon it precluding contradictions, for contradictions cannot exist precisely BECAUSE its individual parts would be recognized under existence. By definition, mutually exclusive parts can't both be recognized.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 11:32:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 10:57:12 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/30/2013 10:03:54 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/30/2013 9:07:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/30/2013 12:34:14 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/29/2013 11:32:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:33:45 PM, sdavio wrote:
How do you know that existence itself requires internal consistency?

Basically, a contradiction is something which, to exist, would have to not-exist to fulfill its own criteria of existence.

Words like 'criteria' only apply to human understanding though.. Hence they are subjective. It's senseless to talk of objects themselves having criteria.

The criteria would correspond to the manifestation required to meet the definition of the contradiction in question. The criteria is merely that which we would recognize as the contradiction. A contradiction incorporates parts that are mutually exclusive with one another, such that a given element is defined in terms of another's absence.

But you still haven't explained how you know objectively that existence itself cannot include contradictions. What the above amounts to is a definition of contradictions - and in subjective terms.


What do you mean by 'existence itself' then?

Objective reality. You have the burden of proving you have non-subjective access to it. I'll admit what I'm essentially doing is a semantic game - but I'd say it's an important one.. The distinction that everything in human experience is by definition subjective. To claim that logical rules can be existentially applied is the wrong tool for the wrong job. The law of identity only applies to human interaction because it deals with definitions. There are no definitions present in things-in-themselves. It's possible that existence itself isn't define-able.

I already explained that a contradiction cannot exist insofar as 'existence itself' exists, because a contradiction is defined in terms of its non-existence...

Consistency implies elements to be 'consisted of', etc; these things we cannot claim to know. It is applying human-level words to extra human subjects. Whether true or not, it is incoherent.

Also the word 'exists' only makes sense subjectively; in that it implies, 'appears to me'. When we say something 'exists' we really mean that we consistently perceive it through our senses.

its manifestation (existence) would be achieved when it didn't exist as per what 'it' refers to. It wouldn't matter if it were taking place apart from the human mind, nor would it matter if we couldn't interact with such a world. Such a world's 'existence' would be contingent upon it precluding contradictions, for contradictions cannot exist precisely BECAUSE its individual parts would be recognized under existence. By definition, mutually exclusive parts can't both be recognized.

How do you know that mutually exclusive parts can't both be recognized?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 11:33:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 12:42:57 AM, 21st_Century_Occultist wrote:
There is always a catch though. Let us try arguing WHY A is A. A is A, well obviously because it is. A, by default is itself. It cannot be logically supported, it is the foundational law of logic! The problem is that this method of thinking actually violates logic. To say A is A "just cause" or because it is "self evident" is, itself, fallacious. Logic proves itself illogical, entering an eternal paradox that shakes the foundations of all reality!


How can circular reasoning be fallacious when the concept of a 'fallacy' necessarily employ it? A paradox is, by definition, invalid, meaning logic's invalidity is invalidated by itself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 12:00:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 11:32:13 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/30/2013 10:57:12 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/30/2013 10:03:54 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/30/2013 9:07:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/30/2013 12:34:14 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/29/2013 11:32:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/29/2013 10:33:45 PM, sdavio wrote:
How do you know that existence itself requires internal consistency?

Basically, a contradiction is something which, to exist, would have to not-exist to fulfill its own criteria of existence.

Words like 'criteria' only apply to human understanding though.. Hence they are subjective. It's senseless to talk of objects themselves having criteria.

The criteria would correspond to the manifestation required to meet the definition of the contradiction in question. The criteria is merely that which we would recognize as the contradiction. A contradiction incorporates parts that are mutually exclusive with one another, such that a given element is defined in terms of another's absence.

But you still haven't explained how you know objectively that existence itself cannot include contradictions. What the above amounts to is a definition of contradictions - and in subjective terms.


What do you mean by 'existence itself' then?

Objective reality. You have the burden of proving you have non-subjective access to it.

No I don't. As I said earlier, insofar as objective reality exists, contradictions can't be recognized as per what 'existence' is defined as.

I'll admit what I'm essentially doing is a semantic game - but I'd say it's an important one.. The distinction that everything in human experience is by definition subjective. To claim that logical rules can be existentially applied is the wrong tool for the wrong job. The law of identity only applies to human interaction because it deals with definitions. There are no definitions present in things-in-themselves. It's possible that existence itself isn't define-able.


You are essentially attacking objective truth itself, and defeating your own argument in the process.

I already explained that a contradiction cannot exist insofar as 'existence itself' exists, because a contradiction is defined in terms of its non-existence...

Consistency implies elements to be 'consisted of', etc; these things we cannot claim to know. It is applying human-level words to extra human subjects. Whether true or not, it is incoherent.

My argument doesn't rest on the premise that we must be able to directly interact with objective reality to conclude that it can't support contradictions. If objective reality exists, contradictions don't. If objective reality doesn't exist, contradiction's don't. It doesn't matter what objective reality is, so long as it is. The impossibility of contradictions is existence in another form. Insofar as we can conclude objective reality exists, we can conclude that contradictions aren't supported by it.

Also the word 'exists' only makes sense subjectively; in that it implies, 'appears to me'. When we say something 'exists' we really mean that we consistently perceive it through our senses.

How is this relevant?


its manifestation (existence) would be achieved when it didn't exist as per what 'it' refers to. It wouldn't matter if it were taking place apart from the human mind, nor would it matter if we couldn't interact with such a world. Such a world's 'existence' would be contingent upon it precluding contradictions, for contradictions cannot exist precisely BECAUSE its individual parts would be recognized under existence. By definition, mutually exclusive parts can't both be recognized.

How do you know that mutually exclusive parts can't both be recognized?

The proof relies on that which is proven. It is an extension of the law of identity, and every argument necessarily incorporates it. Its validity cannot be questioned in any consistent way.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 12:13:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 11:32:13 AM, sdavio wrote:

Think of the 'impossibility of contradictions' and 'existence itself' as the same thing. Basically, the impossibility of contradictions is true insofar as truth is discernible. If you want to argue that logic itself is not verifiable, good luck to you, but at least acknowledge that it can be no more refuted than the premise that A is A.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 7:42:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 12:13:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/30/2013 11:32:13 AM, sdavio wrote:

Think of the 'impossibility of contradictions' and 'existence itself' as the same thing.

That is the whole point of contention lol. You can't just order me to accept your conclusion.

Basically, the impossibility of contradictions is true insofar as truth is discernible.

I never said that truth about existence itself was discernible.

If you want to argue that logic itself is not verifiable, good luck to you, but at least acknowledge that it can be no more refuted than the premise that A is A.

You've redefined the terms though. 'Objective reality' and 'contradictions' are not definitionally mutually exclusive. Objective reality is, the world as it actually is; not the world as it can be perceived. Therefore the distinction is subjective. The original claim was not that if we could perceive objective reality it would be internally consistent, but that it is consistent regardless of human perception.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx