Fujaro wrote:Kevin Solway wrote:The only way we could suggest that it might persist in time is if we had solid empirical evidence, and with empirical evidence we are always in the realm of mere speculation.
A=A itself also cannot be proven.
It doesn't matter that A=A cannot be proven, because it is self-evident.
The only reason to accept it is the congruence with reality as you perceive it.
Absolutely not.
We don't "accept" logic (A=A) because the only way we could possibly "accept" it is if we already had logic in the first place. Logic is automatically built-in to the conscious mind. It is not something that can be accepted or rejected.
So in that you are also using empirical evidence.
In normal science, empirical evidence is something that can be duplicated and tested over time. This is in sharp contrast to pure logic which can be carried out by an individual in the moment, and doesn't require further testing and verification.
"Empirical evidence" only exists because logic is already in operation.
You can't construct existence from logical thought alone.
Nobody is trying to construct existence from logical thought that I know of.
In your snapshot view there is no interaction between objects, because everything is frozen in time.
"The present" is a snapshot, yet the present is caused by the past. So while there is no interaction between the present and the past (since the past has already gone) the present is caused by the past.
You cannot possibly conclude anything about causation between different snapshots without inductive reasoning
I can conclude that a thing was caused by that with is not itself entirely with deductive reasoning.
This strict kind of philosopher is not participating in knowledge gaining but is like a donkey refusing to walk on because on logic alone it can't be deduced that the road will lead anywhere.
The practitioner of pure logic can tell us that the road will definitely lead somewhere - even if it is round in a circle - and he can tell us that through pure deduction.
Kevin Solway wrote:There is a time-aspect in the existence of physical things, such as electrons.
You have only instantanious existence within the snapshot when you say that in every snapshot there is another electron.
We can have an observation of an electron (a "snapshot") and we can still ask "What caused the electron?" and "What will become of the electron?" Hence we have a snapshot, and we also have time.
Kevin Solway wrote:For example, the first electron definitely has effects. There are consequences to its existence. It's just that we don't know that the second electron is one of them.
The word 'effect' you use is based on experience of existence through time, or in other words on the inductive comparison (pattern recognition) of snaphots in a row. You are not allowed to use it in your strict snapshot view.
No. I know that a thing has causes (and effects) through deductive reason alone. It's not something I have learned from empirical experience (which is always uncertain).
. . . it is conceivable in logical sense that between the first and the second statement a new I is inserted with the collective memory of the old I. You cannot be any more certain about this conclusion than about the existence of an electron through time.
A thing only "exists" when observed. Things naturally have no boundary separating them from the rest of Nature. The human mind provides that boundary. That is, the human mind draws a boundary and says "electron", where no boundary previously existed. Similarly with the "I".
A=A has no bearing on existence itself, it's a purely logical concept, placed not only out of time, but also out of reality.
A=A is not a logical concept, but is logic itself. So its value is the value of logic itself.
I'd like to know with which of the folowing staements do you agree?
1) A=A cannot be verified empirically
True, since all empirical evidence requires logic.
2) A=A cannot be proven logically
True, since A=A is itself logic.
3) From A=A alone non-trivial sentences cannot be built
This depends on what you mean by "trivial".
Pure, deductive logic, independent of all empirical evidence, can deliver incredibly profound, valuable, and significant knowledge that can be very hard-won. If all this can be called "trivial" then logic alone can deliver no more than this.
4) The reason for adopting A=A is it's congruence with macro-level appearences
A=A comes built-in with any appearance at all. If you can identify anything at all, then logic is already taking place.
5) A=A can have no complete mapping to reality for it is impossible to know if all properties are known about a thing existing in reality
This statement doesn't really mean anything, since it draws a false distinction between "reality" and logic.
