The Law of Identity: What does it mean?

[Speakpigeon]

This thread is about the Law of Identity: for all things, a thing is itself.

This isn't a thread about logic or about the logic of the Law of Identity. So, please remember that in your replies.

Some context now...

The Law of Identity has been assumed as an axiom of logic since Aristotle some 2,400 years ago, but a few people here and there deny any validity to it. This is their constitutional right, of course, but some of them, possibly all of them even, may not in fact understand what the Law of Identity means to begin with.

So, here is your chance to articulate eloquently what you think the Law of Identity really means to all of us.

I'm not interested in quirky theories that will inevitably be about something not the Law of Identity. I'm only interested in what you think the Law of Identity means, and means to most people, even those people who have never thought about it, and including what it meant to people like Aristotle who of course are long dead now.

Please also note that as far as I am concerned, whatever explanation as can be found in encyclopedias and such about the subject remains open to debate. We may perhaps improve our understanding of the subject by sharing our most intimate intuitions about it.

Also, please, don't ramble. Keep to the point and leave the question of the logic of it at the door.

However, please abstain if you can't articulate your point or argue your position in a rational way, i.e. from logic and facts.

Thanks.
EB

 

[untermensche]

This thread is about the Law of Identity: for all things, a thing is itself.

What exactly is there to talk about since you already tell us what you mean by some obscure phrase?

This is hardly a law.

A mere truism.

 

[WAB]

If I say:

A is A

will people shoot me?

 

[untermensche]

If I say:

A is A

will people shoot me?

Those two things are in different locations so they are not the same thing.

But this is not a thread about such things.

You could say: A is.

 

[WAB]

If I say:

A is A

will people shoot me?

Those two things are in different locations so they are not the same thing.

But this is not a thread about such things.

You could say: A is.

http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

But I was also referring to Ayn Rand's use of A is A, hence the fear someone might want to shoot me.

 

[untermensche]

If I say:

A is A

will people shoot me?

Those two things are in different locations so they are not the same thing.

But this is not a thread about such things.

You could say: A is.

http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

But I was also referring to Ayn Rand's use of A is A, hence the fear someone might want to shoot me.

A has an identity.

But A is not A.

They are in two different locations so they each have an individual identity distinct from the other.

To stipulate A is A is an act of abstraction. It is eliminating the fact they are different unique entities.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If I say:

A is A

will people shoot me?

You'll be fine as long as you don't go on to claim that B is B.
EB

 

[WAB]

http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

But I was also referring to Ayn Rand's use of A is A, hence the fear someone might want to shoot me.

A has an identity.

But A is not A.

They are in two different locations so they each have an individual identity distinct from the other.

To stipulate A is A is an act of abstraction. It is eliminating the fact they are different unique entities.

You'll have to take that up with Aristotle and Rand, as I was just making a joke. Not to say I object to anything you wrote.

ETA: Then again, substituting the universe for A, if I say the universe is the universe, does that put the universe in two different locations?

...just trying to play along...

 

[fromderinside]

Reference:  Law of identity

Electron A is electron A. I call this the property of electron time and place identity.

On the other hand, Spin S of electron A may be spin S of electron B if they have been, at some point, in contract.

So property of spin type S in electron A can be part of identity of electron B as spin type S. But property S retains it's property identity. Whatever occurs with spin in Electron A also occurs at the same time in electron B thus maintaining identity of spin type S.

This signals to me that spin identity need not be electron identity that the property of spin of an electron is determined by contact between two electrons

Yet even while the place of Spin S is with electron B is different from that of Spin S in electron A the property of identity of spin S remains a time property identity regardless of where Spin S is located. However the property of identity for spin S remains a time property of identity. This would suggest there can be properties of identity which are consistent in some aspect of another.

Rather than restarting property of identity we need separate dimensionality of associated properties by dimension. That is, some properties of a thing may be the same as properties of another thing without changing the meaning of property of identity. Any difference in properties is sufficient to distinguish one thing from another.

If the example that place of electron A is different than the place of electron B is sufficient to sustain the property of identity of both Electron A and electron B even though their included properties of spin remain identical.

A bit confusing because I'm not a trained philosopher but it should be adequate to keep this discussion moving along.

 

[untermensche]

http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

But I was also referring to Ayn Rand's use of A is A, hence the fear someone might want to shoot me.

A has an identity.

But A is not A.

They are in two different locations so they each have an individual identity distinct from the other.

To stipulate A is A is an act of abstraction. It is eliminating the fact they are different unique entities.

You'll have to take that up with Aristotle and Rand, as I was just making a joke. Not to say I object to anything you wrote.

And a damn funny joke it probably was.

Then again, substituting the universe for A, if I say the universe is the universe, does that put the universe in two different locations?

By saying that A is the universe you have said it represents something. That in itself is a massive abstraction.

A is the universe?

They appear different.

 

[Speakpigeon]

But A is not A. They are in two different locations so they each have an individual identity distinct from the other.

You'll have to take that up with Aristotle

I suddenly feel beside myself...
EB

 

[steve_bank]

You might want to look at Euclidean Geometry and its axioms and postulates.

A point is an infinitely small massless point. A line is comprised of an infinite number of points. Given the axioms of geometry is logically consistent. This means the result of a problem must always be the same regardless oh how and in what order the rules are properly applied.

Both are physically impossible, but when geometry is overlaid on reality as a mathematical model useful things cam be done.

If a = b and b = c then a = c is a definition within a system of logic among other definitions and rules. It does not mean anything. When logic as a model is applied to reality it can be used to do useful things. If there is meaning that is all there is.

 

[OLDMAN]

So. is law of identity sort of like mosquitoes in a swamp during the Jurassic Period? No one was there to identify them, but they still existed as they were, we know this today because of fossils in amber. Had we not risen from the ashes of a meteor, things still existed. Is this right?

 

[Speakpigeon]

So. is law of identity sort of like mosquitoes in a swamp during the Jurassic Period? No one was there to identify them, but they still existed as they were,

If the Law of Identity is that for all things, a thing is itself, then if there were mosquitoes in he Jurassic, then, these mosquitoes were themselves.

we know this today because of fossils in amber.

I don't think anyone can be said to know that but that's irrelevant here. What's relevant is that whether we know a thing or not, it is itself.

Had we not risen from the ashes of a meteor, things still existed. Is this right?

I wouldn't know myself. The question is whether this is what the law of identity really means to us.
EB

 

[untermensche]

So. is law of identity sort of like mosquitoes in a swamp during the Jurassic Period? No one was there to identify them, but they still existed as they were, we know this today because of fossils in amber. Had we not risen from the ashes of a meteor, things still existed. Is this right?

Nothing understood in human language existed before human language.

"The Law of Identity" is 4 human words.

It did not exist before humans.

It did not exist before some human invented it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You might want to look at Euclidean Geometry and its axioms and postulates.

A point is an infinitely small massless point. A line is comprised of an infinite number of points. Given the axioms of geometry is logically consistent. This means the result of a problem must always be the same regardless oh how and in what order the rules are properly applied.

Both are physically impossible, but when geometry is overlaid on reality as a mathematical model useful things cam be done.

If a = b and b = c then a = c is a definition within a system of logic among other definitions and rules. It does not mean anything. When logic as a model is applied to reality it can be used to do useful things. If there is meaning that is all there is.

Yes, logic is 100% operational even on theories that may not be realistic, i.e. wrong. Logic works even on scientific theories that assume the reality of infinity, be it the infinitely small or the infinitely large. I wonder why.

We can even logically assume the infinite doesn't exist at all and still be confident our theories are predictive. I wonder why.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

You might want to look at Euclidean Geometry and its axioms and postulates.

A point is an infinitely small massless point. A line is comprised of an infinite number of points. Given the axioms of geometry is logically consistent. This means the result of a problem must always be the same regardless oh how and in what order the rules are properly applied.

Both are physically impossible, but when geometry is overlaid on reality as a mathematical model useful things cam be done.

If a = b and b = c then a = c is a definition within a system of logic among other definitions and rules. It does not mean anything. When logic as a model is applied to reality it can be used to do useful things. If there is meaning that is all there is.

Yes, logic is 100% operational even on theories that may not be realistic, i.e. wrong. Logic works even on scientific theories that assume the reality of infinity, be it the infinitely small or the infinitely large. I wonder why.

We can even logically assume the infinite doesn't exist at all and still be confident our theories are predictive. I wonder why.
EB

Then why the op?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Then why the op?

You understand I can't possibly read you're mind, right?

I wonder what's the logical relation between your comment here and the post you appear to reply to.

As to the OP, I think there's some fuzziness about the law of identity and I wanted to have your opinions.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Then why the op?

You understand I can't possibly read you're mind, right?

I wonder what's the logical relation between your comment here and the post you appear to reply to.

As to the OP, I think there's some fuzziness about the law of identity and I wanted to have your opinions.
EB

What fuzziness can there be with linear logic and definitions kike an identity? Logic is,.

It is like asking what 1 + 1 = 2 means, or what something weighing 1kg means. And so on.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Then why the op?

You understand I can't possibly read you're mind, right?

I wonder what's the logical relation between your comment here and the post you appear to reply to.

As to the OP, I think there's some fuzziness about the law of identity and I wanted to have your opinions.
EB

What fuzziness can there be with linear logic and definitions kike an identity? Logic is,.

It is like asking what 1 + 1 = 2 means, or what something weighing 1kg means. And so on.

I don't think a kilogram needs to weigh anything...

Show

The notion of kilogram is also something fuzzy in my opinion and your expression here is revealing... Weighing 1 kilogram... But the kilogram is a unit of mass, not of force, and therefore not a measure of weight. "The weight of a body is equal to the product of its mass and free-fall acceleration". The IS of force is the Newton, not the kilogram. Less fuzzy.

For a long time no distinction was made between the mass and weight of bodies. Thus, a kilogram served as a unit not only of mass but also of weight (the force of gravity). Differentiation between units of mass and weight was established at the Third General Conference of Weights and Measures (1901). A decision of the conference emphasized that the weight of a body is equal to the product of its mass and free-fall acceleration and introduced the concept of normal weight and normal gravitational acceleration (980.665 cm/sec2). A separate unit of force and weight—the kilogram-force—was established at that time. The same principle is preserved in the International System of Units, where the newton has been adopted as the unit for measurements of force.

And here is one good definition of what a kilogram is, i.e. a unit of mass, not of weight:

Kilogram
a unit of mass; one of the seven basic units of the International System of Units (SI). It is equal to the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram, kept at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. Its abbreviated designations are as follows: Russian, kg; international, kg.

Still, the Law of identity is so fuzzy that one kilogram is 0.028 g greater than one kilogram:

In the 18th century, when the metric unit system was first introduced, a kilogram was defined as the mass of 1 cubic decimeter (dm3) of water at 4°C (the temperature of highest density). However, the mass of the prototype kilogram (a cylindrical platinum weight made in 1799) was found to be about 0.028 g greater than the mass of 1 dm3 of water.

So, a kilogram is not a thing!

and a kilogram is not something that needs to weigh anything!

EB