|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 19, 2021 1:54:05 GMT
The occurence of the same thing, under the same respect and at the same time cannot be observed under multiple instances as the instances necessitate a seperation. P=P necessitates multiple instances of the same thing, thus each observation is a different context.
At best identity should be described simply as "P", not "P=P".
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 8, 2022 18:34:59 GMT
True, but partially. If P is really P (not quite the same P, or almost P), then P=P is just P.
You forget that if it is possible, then it is also possible for us to imply that P=P=...=P, or
if that P can change too quickly to spot it, then it's not impossible that P→-P→P→-P→...→P.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 13, 2022 20:27:19 GMT
True, but partially. If P is really P (not quite the same P, or almost P), then P=P is just P. You forget that if it is possible, then it is also possible for us to imply that P=P=...=P, or if that P can change too quickly to spot it, then it's not impossible that P→-P→P→-P→...→P. P=P necessitates (P=P)=P which is different from saying just "P" given equality shows the relation of parts and these parts are distinct in the respect they are parts. This relation of parts necessitates both P and the other P, in P=P, being distinct due to differences in time and space; a thing cannot equal itself unless existing in different positions in time and space, this difference of positions necessitates a different in identity. |
|
