# Thread: The Law of Identity: What does it mean?

1. Originally Posted by WAB  Originally Posted by untermensche 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  Reply With Quote

2. 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.  Reply With Quote

3. 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?  Reply With Quote

4. Originally Posted by 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,
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. Originally Posted by OLDMAN 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. Originally Posted by OLDMAN 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  Reply With Quote

5. Originally Posted by 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?
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.  Reply With Quote

6. Originally Posted by 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  Reply With Quote

7. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon  Originally Posted by 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?  Reply With Quote

8. Originally Posted by 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  Reply With Quote

9. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon  Originally Posted by 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.  Reply With Quote

10. Originally Posted by steve_bank  Originally Posted by Speakpigeon  Originally Posted by 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.
I don't think a kilogram needs to weigh anything...

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  Reply With Quote

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•