Contradiction in the Law of Identity

[ewil]

you just said.

everything =particles
A=A

A (particles)

Particles are tiny portions of matter, not everything.

[Dennis Mahar]

doesn't matter,
he supplied an Identity.
His A is particles.

[Leyla Shen]

PP wrote:

Everything is made from particles, [...]

Including particles.

[...] so forget A = A.

Ok. So, what's a particle, again?

[Leyla Shen]

"His 'A' is particles"?

A=A is the law of identity, not a personal universal singularity!

[Dennis Mahar]

He's claiming his version of reality that no one else can see.

[Leyla Shen]

A=A is actually a fundamental aspect of human thought. PP uses it without comprehending it. It's unconscious. A=A (particle = particle) is at the bottom of his thesis, yet he rejects what results from it out-of-hand; that is, he rejects the fact that not-A also arises from the same the law of identity (A=A).

You are doing something altogether different.

You conflate what arises as not-A with A.

Edit: italics

[Leyla Shen]

(And I was being generous, of course, assuming has an actual thesis.)

[Dennis Mahar]

not A and A arising together, melt together in understanding as indivisible.

[Leyla Shen]

That's unconsciousness.

Sensitivity, discernment, richness in experience and clarity of thought have nothing to do with things melting together anywhere.

[Dennis Mahar]

Sensitivity, discernment, richness in experience and clarity of thought have nothing to do with things melting together anywhere.

On the surface I would agree with that.
except that,
keeping in mind the distinction of there being 2 truths,
all is resolved.

[Leyla Shen]

What?

[Dennis Mahar]

You always/already distinguished consciousness as caused.
as lacking its own essence, as phenomenal,
that it lacks inherent existence.
that that is the ultimate truth of it.

[Leyla Shen]

How does that follow from what you said previously?

[Leyla Shen]

You know, "2 truths" then a third "ultimate truth". Really, Dennis, you ought to work on making more sense rather than just spewing out assertions.

[Dennis Mahar]

things appear to exist from their own side,
they don't,
ineffable silence.

[Kunga]

There's no contradiction in the "law" of identity.

A is A
A is not B

Apple is a Apple NOT a Beer

Simple as that.


Leyla :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

simply put :

relative or commonsensical truth,
absolute or ultimate truth.

[Leyla Shen]

Yeah, thanks--um, Kunga. But I was wanting an explanation as to why Dennis felt the need to qualify his agreement with an exception. I don't thi.k he teally knows.

[Pincho Paxton]

PP wrote:

Everything is made from particles, [...]

Including particles.

[...] so forget A = A.

Ok. So, what's a particle, again?

The description of a particle for me is that it is a small spherical piece of infinity with locality. It's locality makes it what it is. The reason that a particle is important is because all of the physics of higher order come from the particles.

It's like...


1/ Pull your mouse towards your chair.

2/ Now push your mouse towards your chair.

There is no difference between push, and pull with particles, but to a human they are different, because the human scale is an illusion of reality. We look out of the eyes, and a pull seems to come from ourselves, when actually it just comes from our fingers.

Our fingers are made from particles, and particles are spherical, and sphere can only push or bump each other. Sphere cannot pull.

A = A would have to include all physics of an object, and therefore could only mean particles. Otherwise A = A includes some false physics like pull physics.

For example...

A Chain = A Chain

But a chain is thought to pull, yet when you look at a chain at a smaller scale it can only push. So a chain is not a chain. A chain is a human illusion.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Are you now seeing why it's a good idea to discover common ground before discussion about what's disagreed on Leyla?

There are a million philosophical topics people will disagree on, there are a few that they will agree on.

Also it's often the case that words/theories hold different meanings and are conceived of differently from person to person, common ground should be established before proper communication is possible.

[Pincho Paxton]

Philosophy needs rewriting along with science...

Extrinsic Identity is locality at a chosen scale, not A = A. So to a human scale a human has identity, because a human has locality that covers the human scale.

The sun can be described as a huge ball of white heat philosophically. It's description says that it has a position in space, and we ignore the fact that it is particles.

Verbally we can use Extrinsic Identity is locality at a chosen scale, and should be the philosophical replacement for A = A.

Extrinsic Identity is locality at a chosen scale.

If we break it down it means...

The external manifestation of an object has boundaries that we can call edges that we take as its scale. An objects identity is held within this boundary.

Now we are allowed to call a chain an object that can pull... philosophically.

Extrinsic Identity.

However, you cannot then be enlightened, because now you are accepting that you want to see the Universe as a delusion of reality.

To be enlightened you would not use philosophy anyway, because you would know physics.

So you would also have to change the meaning of enlightened to become at one with nature.

Enlightened would have to be changed to Extrinsic Absorption, or Zen.

Then this Genius Forum would be about Extrinsic Absorption. And you would have a new philosophical field... to absorb the nature outside of you into yourself.

Then you can move the sea, or stop it from raining like me.

[Tomas]

That's some good thought there, Pincho.
Extrinsic Absorption.
Keep it up!

[Pincho Paxton]

It's interesting actually that Extrinsic absorption is classed as material that helps to create the luminescence of a diamond, because that actually sounds like enlightened.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 269390250A

[Leyla Shen]

SW wrote:

Are you now seeing why it's a good idea to discover common ground before discussion about what's disagreed on Leyla?

I'm sorry, did I miss your earlier reply to this question: what's the difference?

[Leyla Shen]

PP wrote:

But a chain is thought to pull, yet when you look at a chain at a smaller scale it can only push. So a chain is not a chain. A chain is a human illusion.

It follows then that since it's a human looking also at "a smaller scale chain", the smaller scale chain is also necessarily a human illusion.

[Pincho Paxton]

PP wrote:

But a chain is thought to pull, yet when you look at a chain at a smaller scale it can only push. So a chain is not a chain. A chain is a human illusion.

It follows then that since it's a human looking also at "a smaller scale chain", the smaller scale chain is also necessarily a human illusion.

It's not about what you are looking at, it's about sphere not being able to pull anything. You get some marbles, and they can't pull. You put hooks on the marbles, and the hooks are made from more sphere, so they still can't pull. Not particles can pull. So the illusion stops at particles.

Another example is that magnets can't pull, because they would have to use sphere to pull, and sphere can't pull anything.

Breaking the illusion is knowing physics. Enlightenment is physics.