|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 3, 2022 17:28:22 GMT
If A were A, then A couldn't be differed from A, and since that A would be A.
But as long as A is able to be differed from A, there are two A, not one.
So, if and only if A is not A, there are two A, but we can differ A and another A.
Therefore, A and A - are different, and thus A is not A.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 3, 2022 18:52:13 GMT
Hi, Eugene. I am glad you are alive, and I wish you a very long life.
Your argument is not convincing, as you yourself can see, if you start rephrasing: If A were A, it couldn't be different from itself. BUT A can be different from itself. So, A is POTENTIALLY non-A; meanwhile A is ACTUALLY A. At the same time, we have a Platonic issue: If A is a realiy that is constantly changing, can it be called A? [Is it ever A?] What we call A is always A, if it is a non-chaning [non-physical] reality... Keep on thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 3, 2022 21:46:01 GMT
Hi, Eugene. I am glad you are alive, and I wish you a very long life. Your argument is not convincing, as you yourself can see, if you start rephrasing: If A were A, it couldn't be different from itself. BUT A can be different from itself. So, A is POTENTIALLY non-A; meanwhile A is ACTUALLY A. At the same time, we have a Platonic issue: If A is a realiy that is constantly changing, can it be called A? [Is it ever A?] What we call A is always A, if it is a non-chaning [non-physical] reality... Keep on thinking. Do thank you, Joustos! I wish all the best to you, your relatives, your friends, and your nation too!!! Must say that most of my posts which I have added lately are not very serious. So, truly says I just wanted to concentrate, that's why I decided to copy style of xxxxxxxxx. He usually posts posts like existence is impossible or being is not being, etc. This one - is another one in this genre. However, this may be an example from Charles S. Pierce [at least, I read it from a book of David Armstrong, the Australian philosopher, called "Universals. An Opinionated Introduction", where he demonstrates this examples as a very sharp and presentative example of the problem of universtals] who said the next: THE THE How many words are here: two or just one? 'A' and another 'A' may be taken as an interpretation of this. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 4, 2022 12:38:31 GMT
You need to define what A is.
If its a place-holder, a variable in a formula
then A can be not-A, at different instances.
But at any one instance, A = A.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 4, 2022 14:29:30 GMT
You need to define what A is. If its a place-holder, a variable in a formula then A can be not-A, at different instances. But at any one instance, A = A. Oh, yes, thank you. I think this is the precise or exactly the point. I'm going to use a pick of my experience to make that claim of mine be less chaotic and ambiguous. For this a bit of the set theory basics come in handy. Let's imagine any object is either an element or a set. Properties are the ones that allow to differe an element from an element, and a set of element is the one that defines the set. If an element E 1 cannot be differed from an element E 2, these both are the same E 1=E 2. And if a set A and a set B share the same elements these two sets are the same A=B. As I said above, this post was rather a joke... And even if this is so one famous truth reads there is no joke without a poke. A salt of reality wakes a person up each time a bunch of little fairies sit down near shoulders of a sleepy to kick his out of his night with sweety dreams. What kind of helpful information may be found here? - The problem that bends some philosophy notions down trying to recomprehence them. About what am I talking about? According to your notification A may be a place holder as (A), or |A|, or just __, or A as 'A', as a letter or a symbol A. If this is about symbols - ok, this is a very helpful addition, but if this is about the question about variables/instances - I think we cannod draw a line to divide them clearly. What makes me this that? - The difference between sets and elements. Each element can be rewritten as a set and a set can be rewritten as an element. Considering the undefinable nature of sets, there is no way out. And this is one of possible answers why "A is not A" is as possible as possible it's inversion. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 16, 2022 19:33:57 GMT
If A were A, then A couldn't be differed from A, and since that A would be A. But as long as A is able to be differed from A, there are two A, not one. So, if and only if A is not A, there are two A, but we can differ A and another A. Therefore, A and A - are different, and thus A is not A. The phrase "A=A" observes 2 A's and as such is dyadic. Being dyadic one A is in a different position in time and space then the other therefore both are different. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 24, 2022 5:04:18 GMT
If A were A, then A couldn't be differed from A, and since that A would be A. But as long as A is able to be differed from A, there are two A, not one. So, if and only if A is not A, there are two A, but we can differ A and another A. Therefore, A and A - are different, and thus A is not A. The phrase "A=A" observes 2 A's and as such is dyadic. Being dyadic one A is in a different position in time and space then the other therefore both are different. Exactly! But unfortunately, there's a little hidden trick. If this is so, then the sign of equality "=" doesn't make any sense conjuncting different notions/letters together. By this, "=" is not "=" anymore, it's "≠". Therefore, we don't mention "=", we mention "≠" instead, and it means: A=A = A≠A' Since "=" is not "=" that previous notification doesn't make any sense, and thus: A=A ≠ A≠A' This time it completely divide everything. Such a way or style of thinking had been practicing by Antisphenes, one of Socrates philisophers. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 30, 2022 22:12:12 GMT
The phrase "A=A" observes 2 A's and as such is dyadic. Being dyadic one A is in a different position in time and space then the other therefore both are different. Exactly! But unfortunately, there's a little hidden trick. If this is so, then the sign of equality "=" doesn't make any sense conjuncting different notions/letters together. By this, "=" is not "=" anymore, it's "≠". Therefore, we don't mention "=", we mention "≠" instead, and it means: A=A = A≠A' Since "=" is not "=" that previous notification doesn't make any sense, and thus: A=A ≠ A≠A' This time it completely divide everything. Such a way or style of thinking had been practicing by Antisphenes, one of Socrates philisophers. Thus (A≠A)=(A≠A) with both (A≠A) being fundamentally different. Therefore (A≠A)≠(A≠A) but (≠) does not mean anything considering it self-negates under this statement; logic is a process of self-negation. Considering equality must equal equality, but equivocation necessitates two different things in time/space because it is dyadic, equality does not equal equality further making equality and nonequality the same thing much in the same manner a line between two points simultaneously connects and separates the points. |
|
