/lit/ - Literature

My can of pepsi at 8:39 is equal to my can of pepsi at 8:39

>>19025442
No, smallest quantums of time and matter beyond human ability to understand it. Your can is absolutely another every 0.000000000001*∞ sec.

>>19025431
>there is not a single thing which is an equal to other
you misunderstand how logic even works, the "capital letters" refer to a property that a thing can posess, nobody uses logic to equate real specific objects

>>19025455
oh sorry, my apologies
My can of pepsi at 8:39 exactly, is equal to my can of pepsi at 8:39 exactly

>>19025459
>nobody uses logic to equate real specific objects
Yeah, especially in dispute.

>>19025468
Another formal assumption like logic is.

>>19025475
you're an idiot

>>19025477
There is no exactly in reality, moron.

>>19025431
>there is not a single thing which is an equal to other, or even to own self in every moment.

But you defined such a thing when you said "A = A". "A" is equal to itself in every moment.

>>19025431
This. The Law of Non-Contradiction is just as retarded.
Tell me logicians: is the Liar's Paradox (i.e. "This sentence is false") true or false?

>durr it's neither true nor false!!
Nope, it's BOTH: a true contradiction.
If sentences can be neither, then what about "This sentence is either false, or neither true nor false"?

>durr it's not even a proposition!!
Try that shit on "This is not a proposition."
LOGIC IS OVER.

>>19025553
Okey retard: "A", "=", "moment".

>>19025555
good thing there are logics that don't have it then

>>19025553
A doesnt always equal a though. What aboat typos? A actually meanns u in this instance

>fuck off there is not a single thing which is an equal to other
Then explain this:
OP = Faggot

>>19025431
This things behave like niggers btw

This is your brain on materialism

>>19025785
hey don't rope us into this guy's shit

Logic is an abstract function. A=A presupposes the mental (!) act to equalize two different observable entities (the A on the left and the A on the right)

>>19025675
This is an exception.

Fuck off Trotsky

>>19025482
>muh relativism
cope nigger

>h2o != h2o
this is your brain on retard

>>19026306
Every molecule is unic, retard, they ARE !=
>>19025978
> All of that just good to maths or another cloud castles, but people seriously trying to push this bullshit into real life.

>>19026334
This just proves you're a brainlet who can't delve into the use and beauty of abstract thinking. How do you think you are able to post on this God forsaken digital image board?

>>19026334
>Every molecule is unic, retard, they ARE !=
thanks for the bait. ill have to make this thread on /sci/

Babby’s first experience.

>>19026462
>How do you think you are able to post on this God forsaken digital image board?
aliens

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weird-news/former-israeli-space-security-chief-says-extraterrestrials-exist-trump-knows-n1250333

>>19025431
>A = A. Lmao, fuck off there is not a single thing which is an equal to other, or even to own self in every moment.

>>19026487
>>19026514
seethe

Agreed. The primacy of logic (sophistry) has been devastating intellectually and culturally. It still continues to damage us in many disciplines.

>>19025431
>0001 signal is not 0001 signal
1 != 1 :)

>>19026516
I'm not seething bro, I'm laughing. Or I would be if you pseudointellectual types weren't giving philosophy a bad name to intelligent people involved in mathematics and other rigorous objective disciplines. You're the type of person who brings a bad name upon all of philosophy through sheer stupidity and facile rebellion against reality in its most basic sense. The worst part of it is very smart people who might otherwise have engaged with philosophy (see: Leibniz) are driven away by you and we lose some of the greatest minds.

>>19026541
>in its most basic sense
What sense? A = A? Or 2+2=4? Do you understand it does not describe reality at all?

>>19026550
Reality in its most basic sense IS identity. Otherwise there would be no reality to perceive because reality is not reality. The other way to demonstrate this is through the fact that I am I, which is the principle which can be presupposed by A=A itself. If you are not you, then there is no possible way to oppose an object to you in empirical consciousness, and all sense perception ceases.
>A = A? Or 2+2=4?
These are more real than anything you perceive. Everything you perceive presupposes these fundamental principles (in the case of 2+2=4, the principles behind this addition). At this point all you will do is deny that I am right without providing any coherent reasoning whatsoever, because you don't believe in reason. This is why I will not even continue the "argument" with you, I will just ask you to stop making a bad name for what would otherwise be a noble and intelligent discipline.

>>19026300
>measurement
get gaped

>>19026563
You talking about axioms, which is based on nothing. Yeah it works, but in our human reality, like some axioms working for ants. Your beloved mathematicians describe only our way to describe nothing more. Not the world, neither reality. Schematization of the universe is name for your "cognition".

>>19025482
In infinite space and time, there is bound to be, therefore in math, logic, physics etc... it is more then rational to take is as evident.

>>19026591
>Hume's guillotine

>>19026587
Reality is the axiom. The mind can deny reality as its own act, but that does not prevent reality from being, and being itself at that. You can deny that "you" have "cancer" or that cancer is cancer, but it won't stop this non-entity (which is non-existent because it is not itself, nor anything) from ending "your" "life." There are two other fundamental reasons identity is necessary: The first is that similarity and difference exist in the phenomenal world. Similarity presupposes an identity somewhere, because similarity is meaningless without the idea of sameness = equality (even if the perceived sameness is not absolute equality). Difference presupposes an inequality/non-identity somewhere, because difference is meaningless without an idea of non-sameness = inequality. Exactly where or how this equality and inequality exist is the topic of some philosophical dispute, but their mere existence is not in dispute.
The second is that you have arbitrarily defined "reality" as things you see or otherwise experience, which you have no real knowledge of, thereby completely nullifying your assertion that nothing you see is actually equal to itself. It may well be equal to itself, or it may not be; we cannot know because we can only know things imperfectly with our senses. Our mind is the only instrument with access to reality. The senses are intermediate instruments which provide rough and fragmentary information, which is never the same as reality itself. Ergo, it is necessary to assume that the operations and rules of the mind are more real than those of the senses. This is not to deny the power and reality of sense objects, only our ability to properly know them through the senses.

>>19026628
So some monk in the desert have more chances to truly understand reality, than some scientist. Because everything, EVERYTHING, every basic term in the fucking quotation marks. And single argument "it works". But exactly how? For what? It`s insanity, do you feel it?

Bourgeois metaphysicians BTFO!
>I will here attempt to sketch the substance of the problem in a very concrete form. The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from the proposition that ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’. This postulate is accepted as an axiom for a multitude of practical human actions and elementary generalisations. But in reality ‘A’ is not equal to ‘A’. This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens—they are quite different from each other. But, one can object, the question is not of the size or the form of the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities, for instance, a pound of sugar. The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar—a more delicate scale always discloses a difference. Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true—all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself “at any given moment”.
>Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this “axiom”, it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should we really conceive the word “moment”? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that “moment” to inevitable changes. Or is the “moment” a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist

>>19026662
Tthere are good and interesting things you presented,but your post is not exactly refutation to what that anon stated.

>>19026679
1) Similarity in phenomenal world != equal
im not arguing with similarity
He said nothing new.

>>19025459
>nobody uses logic to equate real specific objects
>morning star is evening star

>>19026709
Why don't you think sameness exists in abstractions?

>>19026718
Everything can exist in abstractions, but if we talk about phenomenal world: sameness != being equal to itself in any time. Similar to itself. Not a single thing in the world equal to anything. This is my frist and main point, and by that, logic is an abstract nonsense had nothing to do to phenomenons.

Then come up with something better or shut your bitch ass up, ho

>>19025468
isolable moments in time are also fictional ;)

>>19025431
>the basis of the reality.
the basis of reality in aristotle is the metaphysic not the logic

>>19026795
They're not but your intelligence certainly is

>>19027546
please explain what a singular moment of time actually is then

>>19025455
to me the can of pepsi IS the same because it is still a can of pepsi, even factoring for microscopic changes.
'cosmic perspective' is for the romantics and hardly scientific.

>>19025431
>>19025474
>A = A
First rule of logic is a PART of logic, but not whole of it. Logic is about the corret way of thinking. It has nothing to do with the real world.

>>19025455
You just proved that he is right. Only A is equal to A. Not the A after a second.

>>19025455
Quantum mechanics have nothing to do with the object you perceive. Anything can happen at a quantum level and the object will still remain the same because objects are representations of functions. If material changes don't interrupt the function of an object then the object isn't changed.

>>19025431
Logic deals with ideas and symbols and mathematical constructs, whether or not the Universe with a capital U actually functions based on human cognitive constructions, whether language actually corresponds to real-reality, is the metaphysical question for the ages, but we know that it has worked flawlessly up until now.

>>19030745
>Logic deals with ideas and symbols and mathematical constructs
forgot to say the reason I said this is that in your post you were talking about how things in the "real" world change throughout time like you are a heraclitean or whatever but obviously the things that logic talks about don't change. a tree might not be the "same" in that the particles making it up don't occupy the same space at the same time but the concept of a tree doesn't change. Whether the concept of a tree is equivalent to a tree, whether numbers can actually be applied to objects, whether it means anything when our brains group things together in sets that you might think only "exist" in our minds, is the question

is nonreflexive identity used somewhere else than quantum mechanics?

Logicians are slippery little faggots who like to claim they are pure formalists when you press them for how and why they think their logic holds good, and then when you accept this and walk away they go back to talking like Leibniz about how their particular late 20th century formalism that they learned in college is the characteristica universalis.

>>19029504
Thus there is no A. And cannot be.
>>19030609
So we trust in "object"?
>>19030745
>>19030752
So technically we are ants, building anthill of the universe. So why people called this anthill Laws of the nature?

Found the nigger

>>19029466
Yes it still can of pepsi, but it not equal to self can of pepsi.

>>19031239
we are are a thing made by the universe using a cognitive process invented by evolution to measure and observe the universe, yes, we construct our own little-u universes using symbols, language, science, logic, math, in an attempt to approach the true Universe

>>19031273
Accepted. So universe can have 0 correlations with Universe, right?

>>19031284
well sure they can it seems like they do sometimes

>>19031289
At least one honest anon. But for me it`s all big shit show, leading us to extinction without any chance of truth. We reject instincts to "pure cognition", which is instinct too, but overgrown.

>>19031311
You don't know where it's going to end, it could all fail or we could find the real truth behind everything, you can keep going not knowing it will succeed and risk wasting your time for nothing or quit, deem it a failure already, and lose everything, a kind of pascal's wager of the progress of thought... and it is progressing, every time we found out something we used to think wasn't true, every time we create a new model of the universe to be tested, one day we might find out what is at the end of the tunnel, it could be nothing or reality itself, but you'll never know if you quit now.

>>19031327
Seems like we put eggs in one basket. For me it`s conceptual impossible to find truth because of design features of our brains. All of that FINDING TRUTH (c) looking like prejustice from old times, when man was child of the God. Special beast! But we are not special, we finding not frontier of the space, but frontier of the brain.

>>19031357
We surely have the capacity to find out whether or not we do have the capacity to find truth, right? We may not be the child of God, but imagine that a species out there is, and they never realize it because of logic like yours

>>19031369
May we should encourage another spices of ants, not only scientific ones, whit their somnabulic finding which cannot be reach. Some spices which at least will not lead us to extinction.

>>19031385
I see no other species in sight that is not leading to extinction, currently pretty much every species on earth is ultimately an evolutionary failure because they will go extinct sooner or later no matter what thanks to the fact that the sun will one day implode. Only humans with science have the potential to not go extinct, though I guess it may not seem to you to have achieved anything of note, from my perspective we have made great progress

>>19026541
You mad bro?

>>19031405
We had a good race, only fool can argue with it. I simply guess we steal from ourselves, by defining human as only Sapience. Especially, as we learned, that`s all a delusion, even not a lie.

>>19025431
>Doesn't understand that things can be fundamentalky identical
>Doesn't understand that this is deminstrable and provable, giving rise to demonstrated physical phenomena (e.g superconductivity)
>The life and opinions of a /lit/wit.