Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

[Leyla Shen]

The point is: the appearance of truth is the appearance of truth (A=A), not TRUTH as an inherently (self-existing) thing with an objective essence.

And? [Edit: re the latter part of that sentence--an objective essence? What's that?]

p.s: An apple! Have you reflected on why you chose an apple in this situation?

Yes. I thought "pink elephant" would confuse you too much! Does it?

[clyde]

Leyla;

An "objective essence" is similar to a pink elephant.

clyde

[Leyla Shen]

Oh, I see.

Since you’re still quite vague, allow me to goad this line of reasoning along a little more.

So, you’re saying that a pink elephant is similar to an inherently (self) existing thing with an objective essence and that truth and an apple aren’t, being merely (somehow, someway, some other) manner/form of appearance?

[brokenhead]

I've already demonstrated a proof of this a day or two ago - i.e. utilizing the concept of a "thing" (defined as a portion of the totality). Given that every member of your two subsets necessarily qualifies as a "thing", it follows that whatever one can logically learn about "things" will necessarily apply to every member of the two subsets - that is to say, to all phenomena in existence.

Why is it a given that every member of the two subsets is a "thing"?

You honestly can't see how each member is necessarily a portion of the totality?

Even the two subsets, by their very nature, are portions of the totality, let alone the members they each contain within.

-

David, don't double-talk me. It is beneath you. My question about calling every member of the two subsets I defined a "thing" was to avoid your usual sleight of hand that you use when you reach this point. Of course I see each member as a portion of the totality, only I called that set Reality. These were my definitions. If you were secure in your position, which you are not, you would not try to obfuscate by renaming each member as a "thing" and renaming Reality "the totality." You are pretending that there is something that I "honestly can't see." Explicitly, then, what is it that I am not seeing, given that your assessment in the quote above is false?

What can you possibly logically learn about "things" that apply to each and every member of the infinite set Reality?

[Kevin Solway]

A(x) is always identical with A(x), so the law of identity is still meaningful.

If A=A is to be taken as a absolute universal truth, it must hold for every possible combination of t1 and t2, e.g. A(t1)=A(t2).

A thing at time t1 is not identical with a thing at time t2. To be identical they would have to exist in the same time and place. That's clear enough isn't it? There's no possible way you can twist the law of identity to make it say that two things that are different are actually not different, without throwing logic out the window.

Kevin wrote: "t1 would be mapped to A1, and t2 would be mapped to A2. Whether A1 has any close causal relationship with A2 is only speculation — which is to say that it is in the realm of empirical science."

It's not really important how many times you remap A, remapping to A2 means the end for A1 or else we would count many more electrons.

As I say, it's only speculation that thing A1 has any close causal connection with A2. And as a philosopher I'm not interested in mere speculation.

There is no trivial intrinsic reason why one logical system should be preferred above another logical systems as underlying reality

There are "sytems of logic", but logic itself (ie, A=A) is not one of them. Logic is used to create these systems of logic for use in specific areas of knowledge.

Only when it is shown that we can have a mapping from logical enities to real entities.

There is no "real" and "non-real" without logic.

Logic and math alone do not, and cannot, generate new truths about nature.

1 + 1 = 2 is a truth about Nature, and so is 1 + 1 + 1, etc. Hence pure logic can deliver countless truths about nature.

The unprovable principle A ≡ A is self-evidently true logically only within the logical system that adopts it.

All logical systems adopt logic, otherwise they wouldn't be logical.

Logic, be it modal logic, propositional logic, paraconsistent logic, multi-valued logic or any other kind of logic one can think of so far, fails to describe all aspects of reality and therefore is incomplete in this sense. It indeed seems that any kind of logic fails to describe the whole of the logical realm, let alone the whole of reality.

A particular system of logic might be limited, but not logic itself.

Logic can describe absolutely anything. For example, the emotion of love is described by logic as "the emotion of love". And the Infinite is described by logic as "the Infinite". There is nothing it can't deal with.

[Fujaro]

A(x) is always identical with A(x), so the law of identity is still meaningful.

If A=A is to be taken as a absolute universal truth, it must hold for every possible combination of t1 and t2, e.g. A(t1)=A(t2).

A thing at time t1 is not identical with a thing at time t2. To be identical they would have to exist in the same time and place. That's clear enough isn't it? There's no possible way you can twist the law of identity to make it say that two things that are different are actually not different, without throwing logic out the window.

Precisely, you must map every instance of the existence of the electron as a separate instance in order to uphold A=A and by doing this you render the use of A=A and all mathematics following grom it impossible. You deny the relation between the elecktron at t1 and t2. It's all different electrons. There goes an electron? Well no, that's just a randomly and coincidental arranged line of infinite numbers of electrons that pop in and out of existence. Well if that's understanding reality! Very deep indeed.

Kevin wrote: "t1 would be mapped to A1, and t2 would be mapped to A2. Whether A1 has any close causal relationship with A2 is only speculation — which is to say that it is in the realm of empirical science."

It's not really important how many times you remap A, remapping to A2 means the end for A1 or else we would count many more electrons.

As I say, it's only speculation that thing A1 has any close causal connection with A2. And as a philosopher I'm not interested in mere speculation.

You are the first philosopher I encounter that's not interested in causality and other patterns in reality like a randomly and coincidental arranged line of infinite numbers of electrons that pop in and out of existence most philosophers of science would call a moving electron.

[clyde]

Oh, I see.

Since you’re still quite vague, allow me to goad this line of reasoning along a little more.

So, you’re saying that a pink elephant is similar to an inherently (self) existing thing with an objective essence and that truth and an apple aren’t, being merely (somehow, someway, some other) manner/form of appearance?

Leyla, appearances (truth and an apple, imaginary pink elephants, and even the concept of "objective essence") have no objective essence.

[David Quinn]

You honestly can't see how each member is necessarily a portion of the totality?

Even the two subsets, by their very nature, are portions of the totality, let alone the members they each contain within.

David, don't double-talk me. It is beneath you.

Double-talk?

My question about calling every member of the two subsets I defined a "thing" was to avoid your usual sleight of hand that you use when you reach this point. Of course I see each member as a portion of the totality, only I called that set Reality.

And so is Reality the totality, in your view, or not?

These were my definitions. If you were secure in your position, which you are not, you would not try to obfuscate by renaming each member as a "thing" and renaming Reality "the totality." You are pretending that there is something that I "honestly can't see." Explicitly, then, what is it that I am not seeing, given that your assessment in the quote above is false?

You're not seeing the simplicity of this kind of thinking and thus you're not seeing its heart - mainly because of an attachment to a God whose survival depends on things remaining unnecessarily complicated.

What can you possibly logically learn about "things" that apply to each and every member of the infinite set Reality?

Reality isn't infinite if it excludes things, such as you are wanting it to do.

We can logically learn, for example, that no thing can ever constitute the totality. A personal God, for example, cannot constitute the totality. That is to say, it cannot constitute Reality.

-

[David Quinn]

But we can say that appearances are conditional, not absolute; and arise and pass away based on conditions (which are themselves appearances).

Yes, that's another example of a truth which as a concept lacks inherent existence, and yet is timelessly true.

Maybe. But of course you may to cling to "timelessly true", but not forever.

It has nothing to do with clinging. Recognizing truth is simply that - recognizing truth.

Leyla, appearances (truth and an apple, imaginary pink elephants, and even the concept of "objective essence") have no objective essence.

Very true!

The point is: the appearance of truth is the appearance of truth (A=A), not TRUTH as an inherently (self-existing) thing with an objective essence.

One is on the brink of TRUTH when one realizes, fully and completely, that all things lack an objective essence.

-

[clyde]

One is on the brink of TRUTH when one realizes, fully and completely, that all things lack an objective essence.

David, when one realizes, fully and completely, that all things lack an objective essence, it renders "one is on the brink of TRUTH" empty.

[David Quinn]

One is on the brink of TRUTH when one realizes, fully and completely, that all things lack an objective essence.

David, when one realizes, fully and completely, that all things lack an objective essence, it renders "one is on the brink of TRUTH" empty.

That emptiness is the Truth.

It is a question of how fully one is prepared to enter into it.

-

[Fujaro]

@Kevin:
Also you have hereby managed to deconstruct Descartes’ cogito ergo sum. For what must hold for an electron or any other particle, holds for a bunch of particles like your body. So the irrefutable holy absoluteness of the A=A mantra forces us to consider that the two instances of ‘I’ in the sentence ‘I think, therefore I am’ separated by a small but finite time interval correspond to two completely different I-instances. And as a philosopher you won’t speculate on the relation between the ‘I’ in the first part of the sentence and the ‘I’ in the second part. This is deep, but maybe not what you wanted.

Please reconsider my main point: logic does not necessarily force reality to abide to its laws. We have to intelligently map reality to logic and vice versa before we know anything of reality.

[clyde]

One is on the brink of TRUTH when one realizes, fully and completely, that all things lack an objective essence.

David, when one realizes, fully and completely, that all things lack an objective essence, it renders "one is on the brink of TRUTH" empty.

That emptiness is the Truth.

It is a question of how fully one is prepared to enter into it.

David, how you go on.

In any case, there is no entering or exiting that emptiness.

[David Quinn]

In any case, there is no entering or exiting that emptiness.

To the degree that one doesn't fully realize in all facets of one's being - intellectually, psychologically and emotionally - the lack of inherent existence of all things, one hasn't entered into emptiness. One is still being taken in by illusion.

-

[clyde]

In any case, there is no entering or exiting that emptiness.

To the degree that one doesn't fully realize in all facets of one's being - intellectually, psychologically and emotionally - the lack of inherent existence of all things, one hasn't entered into emptiness. One is still being taken in by illusion.

Even illusion is emptiness.

Good night.

[Blair]

Even illusion is emptiness.

Wrong. Illusion is Ilusion. A=A. You are currently trapped in this realm.

Emptiness is Emptiness, A=A.

[Leyla Shen]

After due consideration, I think it rare to find an American who understands Australian...

Oo-roo. :)

[Kevin Solway]

you must map every instance of the existence of the electron as a separate instance in order to uphold A=A and by doing this you render the use of A=A and all mathematics following grom it impossible.

You don't explain why you say this. (continued below)

You deny the relation between the elecktron at t1 and t2.

No, I don't deny the existence of a relation between the two things, A1 and A2.

Let's deal with A1 and A2, and call A1 "A" and A2 "B", since they are different things.

Now B is part of the rest of the Universe in relation to A. So right there is a relationship between A and B. Science may also empirically demonstrate a possible close causal connection between A and B. This would be yet another (possible, or speculated) relationship.

It's not really important how many times you remap A, remapping to A2 means the end for A1 or else we would count many more electrons.

Myself at this very instant in time cannot possibly exist five minutes from now. Myself at this instant in time exists only for this instant in time. This is a purely logical point that simply needs to be understood, regardless of how difficult it might be for the common mind to understand. Like quantum mechanics, it might be "non-intuitive" for some people.

You are the first philosopher I encounter that's not interested in causality and other patterns in reality

I'm only interested in things we can say about causality with absolute certainty. I'm not interested in speculation.

[Kevin Solway]

And as a philosopher you won’t speculate on the relation between the ‘I’ in the first part of the sentence and the ‘I’ in the second part.

Pure logic happens outside of time, so the logical 'I' is always the same, no matter how old you believe your body to be. Not only that, but everybody's 'I' is all the same 'I' (for the same reason that there is only one number '1').

Please reconsider my main point: logic does not necessarily force reality to abide to its laws.

Reality and logic are not two different things. Reality abides by the laws of logic because logic is one of the forces of which it is made.

[DHodges]

Precisely, you must map every instance of the existence of the electron as a separate instance in order to uphold A=A and by doing this you render the use of A=A and all mathematics following grom it impossible. You deny the relation between the elecktron at t1 and t2. It's all different electrons. There goes an electron? Well no, that's just a randomly and coincidental arranged line of infinite numbers of electrons that pop in and out of existence. Well if that's understanding reality! Very deep indeed.

The modern scientific view is that if you observe an electron at t1, and you observe an electron at another time t2, then all you can say is that you have made those two observations; you can not conclude that it is the "same" electron. You can, however, make statements about correlations between observations made at different times, since that is strictly mathematical.

Any statement about what happened in between t1 and t2, is speculative (since, by definition, you can't observe what happens between observations). It doesn't actually mean anything to ask whether it is the "same" electron.

In between observations, an electron might be thought of as a cloud of virtual particles with no definite momentum, velocity or position. (Or you might think of it as a wave rather than a particle.) In the Copenhagen view, it "collapses" into an electron when it is observed. But these are theoretical constructs; they are not facts about the electron(s).

[Fujaro]

Kevin wrote: “A thing at time t1 is not identical with a thing at time t2. To be identical they would have to exist in the same time and place.”

Kevin wrote: “As I say, it's only speculation that thing A1 has any close causal connection with A2. And as a philosopher I'm not interested in mere speculation.”

This is about identifying the existence of a thing such as an electron as propagating in time. You say that A is not the same electron as B. They are very different things. Thereby you say it does not persists itself in time. The only logical valid relations you under your assumptions possibly can have is within the snapshot. Thus there can be no identity-relation along the time axis and there can be no causal relationships (presuming that causal relations require a non-zero time interval). In every snapshot an electron mysteriously is present. There is no connection between the properties say charge of the electron A in the first snapshot and the charge of electron B in the second snapshot. There is no time-aspect to existence. Every instance of existence is a new existence.

So the sentence ‘I think, therefore I am’ says nothing about your now and is untrue? In my opinion my self-existence is foremostly something that propells itself through time while every snapshot as such is totally irrelevant for who I am. I am foremostly means I am existing along a timeline.

I say that the current view on things is that there are things in nature that have an identity-relation along the time axis and that this observation has considerably more use and meaning than seeing the universe with everything in it as a set of unrelated snapshots. Nothing but lethargy can follow from the snapshot stance.

So that you can map A=A in this particular way to reality, I don’t deny, but the results are catastrophic as it restricts your thinking about reality to the snapshot. And there may be other possible ways to map logic to reality. There is no preferred way a priori for this although your choice for A=A leads you into thinking that there is. It already is a mapping to reality and a step that does not follow from A=A itself.

A more nifty way of assigning logic to reality might be that some property of existence in time of say an electron can be mapped to a logical entity A, where for every t between begin and end of the lifecycle of the electron creation we can assign the value to A. This is another possible mapping, one that does not require the restriction that A(t1)=A(t2) and one that enables us to interpret time dependecies and interaction between entities. By doing this we acknoledge that reality comes with a time-aspect that is relevant to all existence. With A=A we don’t. In fact the sentence A=A cannot be spoken as a true sentence for the former A is in another snapshot than the latter.

Placing the 'I' outside the snapshot logic is illogic. Why do one thing for the electron and a completely other thing for your own existence. This sounds like religion to me.

[Fujaro]

Precisely, you must map every instance of the existence of the electron as a separate instance in order to uphold A=A and by doing this you render the use of A=A and all mathematics following grom it impossible. You deny the relation between the elecktron at t1 and t2. It's all different electrons. There goes an electron? Well no, that's just a randomly and coincidental arranged line of infinite numbers of electrons that pop in and out of existence. Well if that's understanding reality! Very deep indeed.

The modern scientific view is that if you observe an electron at t1, and you observe an electron at another time t2, then all you can say is that you have made those two observations; you can not conclude that it is the "same" electron. You can, however, make statements about correlations between observations made at different times, since that is strictly mathematical.

I agree, but please observe that in the described case it would be quite illogic (at least before being disproven rigorously) not to consider these observations as observations of the same electron.

[Fujaro]

@Kevin:

The question then also is: Are you your logical 'I', or is the latter no less a presentation of things you perceive in reality like all other things.

[David Quinn]

To the degree that one doesn't fully realize in all facets of one's being - intellectually, psychologically and emotionally - the lack of inherent existence of all things, one hasn't entered into emptiness. One is still being taken in by illusion.

Even illusion is emptiness.

Not to those who are deluded.

-

[Fujaro]

@Kevin:

As I understand it when you take A=A to map an electron in a snapshot, you want to be as sure as possible to use only 100% certified logic.

Well, this imho can seriously be doubted for several reasons:

a) First of all, the process of assigning an entity from reality to A is not in itself a logical step.

It goes something like this: In the snapshotview you identify a part of reality as an entity that is of interest for you. The question is, on what basis should you decide that it is of interest to you when all you have to build on is A=A? Short answer: there is no reason for it to single out the electron at all. This is because there is no observable interaction in the snapshot itself and if there was, you would be using knowledge from reality, not from logic to base your decision on. So in choosing for the electron you show some bias originating from prior knowledge from the world as if the electrons in all the other snapshots had something to do with it, which you know is absurd. Then what follows? You abstract the electron to a logical entity. You say this is the thing I call electron, it even may have blurry edges in reality, but the logical counterpart as an abstact of it is precise. In logic there is no blurryness. The process of mapping the electron from the snapshot to the abstractied electron is not a logical step following from A=A. Are you done? No! Then you assign the letter A to this abtraction. Observe that this again is not a logical step following from A=A. You intrepret A=A as an prescription to which you can assign for A logical abstracts of things from reality. And after deep deep thought you exclaim: "my lord it is done, electron=electron!" And god saw that this was just about right, but not all too logical after all.

b) The choice for A=A as the mother of all logical statements is rather arbitrary

Off course, I won't deny that it is a pretty compelling truth in everyday life for most things. But as a truth loving philosopher you wanne be not just sure, you wanne be deadly sure, if that is what it takes. Why should this statement be a truth about reality? Technically it is only a logical statement. As an axiom it would even be true if we lived in a world where things are not themselves but manifestations of other things. There is no reason a priori why you should prefer this one out of a list of logical axiomas. Euclid, just on his way to a conference on non-Riemannian geometries, shows you his list, but you say: "nah, this will do". You accept it to be true logically always, although you can't prove that with logic. For every logic that proves it, will contain it. And that's begging the question, and you for some reason, well you really hate that. You won't beg for anything at all! You just accept it as a true statement about all of reality. Did I say all of reality? But what if logic is not all of reality? Well, let's just assume that all of reality is just the sum total of your arbitrary choice of logic. That'll do. But then god's voice thunders from the heavens: "Son, is that being really, really truthfull?!" And you might wanna rethink your choice.

c) It presupposes decidability on the existence of the abstracted thing in reality

Say you wanna map the spin state of the electron to A. Of course, as a true philosopher you have no prior knowledge of what the hell a spin state of an electron is, but someone suggested it at dinner and it somehow stuck on you. It has a nice ring to it somehow. So you do your mapping, but just as you thought you had it on paper, that same guy that suggested it to you, says: "well, you do know that the electron spin state only exists in the measurement" WTF, you think, is he talking about? A=A means that A is itself, but how can we decide on that if it is undecidable on both ides of the equation? This would mean that we can't instantiate A=A to a certain value of A, that only the abstraction <some undecidable value for the spin of my fav electron> = <some undecidable value for the spin of my fav electron> is true but not as the electron is measured. There is some resentment of trusting that guy from dinner in the first place and it is all over your face when you leave your desk with on it a paper with your newest hard core truth in the galaxy.