Identity Crisis and petitio principii

I read here on Solo that the Law of Identity, to whomever we should attribute it, proves that the concept of identity makes explicit that reality has a definite nature, that it is knowable hence finite.

At the risk of revealing the true depths of my ignorance, i take "A is A" to mean just that; that all properties defining A equals A.

Isn't A merely all known properties of A, and NOT all knowable properties of A? A does not contain unknown properties, though it is known to contain some yet unidentified properties, and maybe even some indeterminable, uncertain, incomplete properties.

We may morph A when new properties are known, but then it is no longer the A it was. That A is all observed or by reason deducted or inducted properties of A i see as no proof that we will be able to observe or by reason deduct or induct the A it will become, let alone all the properties of reality...all we can know is the A it is, A is finite, reality isn't, and may never be, known to be - if we agree that reality is the reality that exists independent of our understanding of it.

A is A and "A can't change the laws of physics" :o) or ?

(Edited by Søren Olin
on 7/21, 5:05pm)

Post 1

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 5:59pm

My understanding of "A is A", is this: A has properties that are it's own, it may have some properties that another existent has, but it has properties that make it its own existent.

We may morph A when new properties are known, but then it is no longer the A it was.

Even though an existent may have properties we have yet to identify about it, it still has the same identity. Our perception of its identity does not change the reality of its identity.

We may morph A when new properties are known, but then our perception of what A was is no longer the same. A remains A, and A is A, independent of our perception.

Post 2

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 6:00pm

Whether we know everything about A or not, A has certain immutable characteristics that our relative level of information about A has nothing to do with. A is A means, a thing is what it is, and is nothing else. A Chair is not also a cat, and it reacts like a chair, not a cat. It's implication is that the universe is defined, and definable by man.

Post 3

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 1:52am

Scott & William,

Thank you both for clarifying that 'A is A' is to say reality is reality, rather than my understanding of reality is my understanding of reality, it makes me agree no less to the Law of Identity. My problem persists though, in the deduction that this should affect the cognizant properties of A, that it should infer a finite nature of reality, that it should rule out infinity as being a property of reality. It only rules out infinity as part of our knowledge.

Reality is reality would imply that the falling tree would make a noise regardless of an audience, that a dimension sharing nothing with the, by any means, by us, observable universe would still be an existing dimension, unknown, undefined, existing.

If identity is that which it has, or If identity is that which is defined or observed by man, or even both, we know nothing about our ability to know it's reality as in "reality has a definite nature, that it is knowable". I fail to isolate human knowledge in that equation to any extend more profound than human knowledge = human knowledge, its current extend is finite by definition, we can expect it to evolve to the human knowledge of tomorrow, but we cannot say that human knowledge is all reality, we can on the contrary prove that it is not. Only things created by definition can be fully known to be their definition and nothing more. That everything can be known to be what it is, does not itself make it possible for what it is to be known, or God would exist because the bible says so, and the bible would be right because it was created by God.

Accepting the Law of Identity, how does "reality has a definite nature, that it is knowable" hold water?

(Edited by Søren Olin
on 7/22, 4:41am)

Post 4

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 1:15pm

Soren, here's some relevant mental exercises (warning: written in half-jest/half-solution).

First, let's assume the opposite:
Let's assume A is not A (and therefore, by extension, that reality does not have a definite nature). Where does that leave us?

"Us?" you might say ... "there is no us" (we are not ourselves).

"What you've just said isn't what you've just said" I would retort, citing that "what you've just said" -- does not have a definite nature ... nothing does.

At this point, we both fall into the dark abyss of fatalistic solipsism.
--------------------

Now let's assume -- for a moment, at least -- that reality HAS a definite nature. Let's also assume that we're organisms somehow RELATING to our environment. And let's apply these 2 assumptions to Scott's cat-chair conundrum.

You're at the pet store seeking to buy a cat for your child's birthday -- as you had promised. At the pet store, there are several cats and a couple of chairs as well. You want to make sure that you purchase a cat -- and not one of the chairs, accidentally -- as this would ruin your child's birthday party.

After taking to heart what you had read on SOLO, you've become convinced that there is a definite difference between cats and chairs -- and that this definite difference can become definitely knowable by special organisms with special mental capabilities; organisms called humans (of which you are one).

With bold confidence, you purchase a cat (and not a chair), knowing that you have successfully responded to your environment. When you get home, you immediately let the cat loose and watch the glee spring from your child -- as your heart melts, you say to yourself: "This was made possible by my ability to become aware of definite differences of definite things in my definite environment."

Differences are knowable.
--------------------
Here's
proof

Ed

Post 5

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 8:57pm

Soren, a relevant postscript:

Reality is one way, and NOT other ways.
We can come into possession of the truth of the matter -- about which way reality is, as opposed to ways that it is not.
-----------------
Therefore, we can know what reality is (and what it is not).

If you tell me that you have to run all day, just to stay in the same place -- then I will retort that you are wrong about that (because I know -- I don't merely believe -- that reality is not like that).

Ed

Post 6

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 8:12am

Soren, more to your specific point:

-----------------
My problem persists though, in the deduction that this should affect the cognizant properties of A, that it should infer a finite nature of reality, that it should rule out infinity as being a property of reality. It only rules out infinity as part of our knowledge.
-----------------
It's okay to postulate infinite space, because "space" is perhaps not a true "something" in existence (space can be thought of, as the lack of existence). What's not okay is to postulate infinite matter (the truly existing stuff, which space "divides"). Infinity is merely a potentiality, and not an actuality -- not here, not there, not anywhere.

-----------------
a dimension sharing nothing with the, by any means, by us, observable universe would still be an existing dimension, unknown, undefined, existing.
-----------------
True, but inacceptable. It's not rationally acceptable to postulate "merely" imagined things, things which have no tie to anything already known. Things that don't relate in any way to known reality, are arbitrary. There is no standard for judging the arbitrary. Descartes made a huge mistake in postulating a deceptive demon -- something unrelated to anything known; something presumed to trick him into believing he knew things.

The reason that Descartes was so wrong to postulate this demon, is because it is equally possible (all arbitrary statements are equally possible) that there was also a guardian angel of ours, who was deceiving the demon into thinking itself to be deceiving us. There is nothing in reality, or in logic, to allow for rational evaluation -- and comparison -- of these postulations. What this means is that we must view them -- all arbitrary statements -- on equal footing. To "champion" one arbitrary statement (over others) is ipso facto wrong-headed.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 7/23, 8:16am)

Post 7

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 8:56am

What if "A" lives in a communist country and has no property of its own?

Then , are we safe to assume that "A" could be "T" ?

Since "A" has no property then it could be whatever the government wishes it to be.

Does "A" even exist at this point?

If the government is engaging in propaganda to further it's devilish cause then the people are aware of "A" but it might not be "A".

Therfore, we can deduce from the said proof and declare that "A" is not "A" and may in fact not be a linguistic character but be a cleverly disguised polynomial that introduces another tax increase to perpetuate the war against terrorism in order to protect us from the reality of "A".

So, in reality, there is no "A" ? :) Jbrad

Post 8

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 2:21pm

Thank you very much Ed, for taking the time to reply in such detail.

The flashlight in the dark room, looking around, happy to know that the room is fully lit.

---------
"It's okay to postulate infinite space, because "space" is perhaps not a true "something" in existence (space can be thought of, as the lack of existence). What's not okay is to postulate infinite matter (the truly existing stuff, which space "divides"). Infinity is merely a potentiality, and not an actuality -- not here, not there, not anywhere. "
---------
If we can agree that everything, except a possible smallest component, is made up of 'stuff', everything is a collection of some kind, an ant, a man, a wall all made up of smaller components, your chair and your cat full of whatever the smallest components may be, endlessly grouped in different concepts; atoms, cells, organs... ending in a cat, that itself may be said to be a component in some larger concept; household, globe, solar system, universe... now the universe is not nothing, it may be everything - and for sure it is everything we know - yet we have just accepted that it may be infinite - its infinite space or infinite nothing has made the universe - in this example - an infinite thing, though clearly not an infinite cat, as i know how a cat looks.

I completely accept that we have, and are, and are part of something that is what it is regardless our perception of it, i accept that the things we have perceived we know and it's irrelevant if you perceive cat the same as i perceive cat, we both perceive cat and can, tell each other and say for sure that it is not chair... we can do this with extreme precision, that we can't do it with complete precision is irrelevant.

--------
(an unknown dimension would still be existing) True, but inacceptable. It's not rationally acceptable to postulate "merely" imagined things, things which have no tie to anything already known. Things that don't relate in any way to known reality, are arbitrary.
--------
But now we are back to "A=A" being "A=known A" not real A whatever it is. My claim is that it must be equally rationally unacceptable to postulate potential complete knowledge about ALL reality. We can only postulate complete knowledge of the known, and accepting that truth is an approximation, also potential knowledge about something beyond the known, but not all knowledge about all unknown.

We can't talk about complete knowledge of a reality existing regardless of perception - IT is a contradiction. Unless knowable is referring to a potential quality of things regardless of man, though that would seem an odd addition to the simple fact that things are what they are.

Post 9

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 6:59am

Infinite cats

--------------------
... the universe is not nothing, it may be everything - and for sure it is everything we know - yet we have just accepted that it may be infinite - its infinite space or infinite nothing has made the universe - in this example - an infinite thing, though clearly not an infinite cat, as i know how a cat looks.
--------------------

Soren, that would be one ... fat ... cat, indeed! I think we have a common ground here -- that physical things, in actuality, cannot be infinite (infinite cats, etc). I'm not as confident that we have the same definition of universe, though. Def'ns 1,2, and 4 (from m-w.com) seem most appropriate to this discussion. Please comment on your preference:

--------------------
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated

COSMOS: as
a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power
b : the world of human experience
c : the entire celestial cosmos

2 : a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization

4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem
--------------------

My own def'n of universe would be:
All the physical (therefore, knowable) things AND the space between them.

--------------------
... it's irrelevant if you perceive cat the same as i perceive cat, we both perceive cat and can, tell each other and say for sure that it is not chair... we can do this with extreme precision, that we can't do it with complete precision is irrelevant.
--------------------

How true. I am your kindred spirit here, Soren.

--------------------
But now we are back to "A=A" being "A=known A" not real A whatever it is. My claim is that it must be equally rationally unacceptable to postulate potential complete knowledge about ALL reality. We can only postulate complete knowledge of the known, and accepting that truth is an approximation, also potential knowledge about something beyond the known, but not all knowledge about all unknown.

[break]

Unless knowable is referring to a potential quality of things regardless of man, though that would seem an odd addition to the simple fact that things are what they are.
--------------------

This is where the axioms shine. You appeared to have answered yourself with the last comment. Axioms are so difficult to utilize, because they do not require knowledge -- but something more than knowledge. Their use requires understanding. Understanding isn't knowing facts, its knowing how facts "hang together."

Understanding that things will be what they are -- throughout an appropriate space and time; and understanding that things are not that which comes into -- and then goes out of -- existence (the "persistence of existence" axiom); we can feel confident that we can FIND ways to discover all that exists.

Now, don't get me wrong here -- discovering all that exists is a considerable task! Perhaps we could start out small, and shoot for discovering everything that exists within a 30 light-year radius of our planet!

Soren, how do you feel about the statement that matter isn't something that is ever created or destroyed?

Ed

Post 10

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 2:35pm

My definition of universe...

If we trace the path of all observable galaxies we will see a general tendency that they all move away from one point in four-dimensional space, i would hold that everything, all energy, known or unknown, moving away from that point, is the universe. The whole, expanding, sphere of energy including the matter or space within it, is our universe. I would not rule out the possible existence of other universes originating in other points. I would not rule out other than our 4 dimensions to exists, though i would expect any such dimension to not prove wrong, a point of origin - a 'big bang'.

To bring it further to your question about created or destroyed - it's very much grey area, failing any type of proof, but i seem to hold on to some notion that all is a fluctuation in nothing, that all that is, is a difference in energy adding up to zero. Grey, split in black and white, moving back towards grey.

As you see my notion of universe is finite, i just dislike the all inclusive / all exclusive statements. Our disagreement would seem founded on my lack of training in formal systems - guess ill have to wipe the dust off 'metamagical themas' and 'gödel, escher, bach' once again...

But to continue on your 'discovering everything that exists'... what if, in our quest for complete knowledge of the universe, we start by our own brain, it is after all the closest part of the universe that we have... wouldn't we have exhausted our capacity to know, before we had gained full knowledge of our own knowledge?

Or to repeat myself... isn't the land itself the only thing holding ALL the details, and everything else simply abstractions?

Post 11

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 10:13pm

Soren the Serendipitous**,

**serendipity: an assumed talent for making discoveries by accident

------------
I would not rule out the possible existence of other universes originating in other points. I would not rule out other than our 4 dimensions to exists, though i would expect any such dimension to not prove wrong, a point of origin - a 'big bang'.
------------

I, also, would not rule out other points of origin -- though I would then merely include them under my conception of 'universe.'

Regarding the ruling out of the 4 dimensions (I'm assuming that, by 4 dimensions, you speak of the 3 Cartesian dimensions -- denoted by the X, Y, and Z axes in geometry -- plus the dimension of "time"), I take the counter stance. And I charge you, Soren, with postulation of the arbitrary (which is no small charge, indeed).

Arbitrary postulation is altogether nonproductive. Considering that time and mental effort are finite, one may even conclude that arbitrary postulation is counter-productive (takes time and energy away from solving known problems in a knowable world).

Soren, your expectation of 'other' dimensions not proving wrong a "point of origin" reveals that you, as I do, hold that what is now known, is all that humans ever have, in evaluating new ideas. At this point -- evaluating new ideas, always and only via reference to what is known -- all assumption of extra-dimensional reality loses critical ground.

Humans have wonderful imaginations, and imaginative insight explains the noted progress of free societies -- but mere imagination of 'possibilities,' unintegrated with our current knowledge, can stultify a human mind. It is right to 'state' that it is possible that other dimensions -- besides the ones we're sure of -- exist. It is not right to spend time and mental energy on such conjecture and postulation.

Humans ought to integrate all possibility with the known. A lack of integration is as dangerous as cyanide (both destroy the mind).

------------
To bring it further to your question about created or destroyed - it's very much grey area, failing any type of proof ...
------------

Soren, I suppose that all of human experience is not enough "proof" for you. That is not the case with me, however. If all of human experience points one way -- regarding a postulate -- then I feel rationally compelled to adopt it. Yes, I can "imagine" (in my mind's eye) an alternative to all of human experience, but I cannot evaluate this with some standard that somehow "transcends" human experience of reality. And I suspect you can't either.

------------
... i seem to hold on to some notion that all is a fluctuation in nothing, that all that is, is a difference in energy adding up to zero.
------------

You seem to be one who can't step into the same river once -- let alone twice. How profoundly existentialist of you!

------------
But to continue on your 'discovering everything that exists'... what if, in our quest for complete knowledge of the universe, we start by our own brain, it is after all the closest part of the universe that we have... wouldn't we have exhausted our capacity to know, before we had gained full knowledge of our own knowledge?
------------

Supposing that you mean mind by brain -- it is true, our own [mind] is "the closest part of the universe that we have." Though, "knowledge of our own knowledge" is a useless redundancy (true knowledge presupposes 'knowing how you know what it is that you know').

As a property dualist (opposite = property monist = no consciousness), I disagree with your attempt to make mind-knowing an insurmountable task for humans. Mind-knowing involves introspection though (non-introspective means cannot ever come to know minds). "Mind" is an inherently subjective phenomenon. Another way to say this, is that the objective view of the mind -- is the subjective view of it.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 7/24, 10:15pm)

Post 12

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:19am

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. Serendipity - the finding of valuable or agreeable things not sought for - i do hold as key to discovery. To keep it earthbound, an archeologist may set out to find roman pottery, he will choose a site likely to reveal, that which he is looking for, but he will find what he finds, if the medieval burial grounds for leprosy stricken children, the tomb of an unknown egyptian pharaoh or just dirt, reality is reality, if we search for roman pottery or anything else, we find what we find.

On nonproductive arbitrary postulation, my expectation that unknown properties - in this case fact-based concepts of other possible dimensions besides those of time and space - to not prove a point of origin wrong, would remain, if spoken or not. I hold a view based on fact, and i expect the unknown properties not to prove it wrong. If i expected the unknown properties to prove me right i would indeed be making an arbitrary postulation, but expecting the unknowns not to prove me wrong would, if articulated or not, be an implied premise for the concept of a point of origin, that i hold to be true.

We both accept knowledge to be an approximation. As we don't know the smallest building blocks, should such a thing exist, i would even claim that anyone accepting reasoning to be the way to knowledge, have to accept approximate knowledge to be true, as it is all we have. The only alternative would be to accept nothing to be true.

But given an approximate truth, i take it that none of us are thinking in absolute truths, that cat is cat we take as 99.whatever% true, most of the time, though at times we might find cat to only be 60% certain, because cat under some conditions also could be lynx.

That Einstein supported Hapgood's Earth Crust Displacement theory, makes the theory no more proven, though it does slightly increase my tendency to accept it as a possibility - not from faith, but from knowledge that Einstein had powers of reasoning superior to mine - an arbitrary postulation.. not quite as facts does point in that direction, though facts could be interpreted as supporting other theories as well, a possible truth, not proven wrong, but only to a minimal degree proven right, not a belief as i don't hold it as true, but a theory worth examining. Knowledge with certain degrees of reliability.

Other things i do hold as absolute true and proven, i am 100% certain everything that is proven to the extend i need it proven - my pen writes in blue, though it may contain traces of red, its blue. My son loves me, when denied something he may say he hates me, but i know he loves me. It's raining outside, the world is somewhat spherical, the guy next to me in the elevator broke wind, the solar system contains the sun, the planets and the moons i've been told it contains, that its outer perimeters are only approximately defined is no problem, it's an absolute solar system.

On being "profoundly existentialist", i give no value to nothingness - that i hold all energy to add up to zero, should by no means be seen as nihilistic, on the contrary, i simply find all values to exist in the differences, i embrace the differences rather than embracing the voids between them - i find joy to be my overall goal, i find joy in knowledge - i find joy in creating absolutes that i can relate to, as believers find joy in absolute faith removing uncertainties - and indeed the only alternative to knowledge would be faith, and i find no joy in believing every word of the uncertain translations of a bucket-full of scriptures from different writers, written at different times in different languages, describing the life and values of some dude living a couple of thousand years ago, though i may find some of the lessons in those writings worth adapting. I find joy in reaching goals, i find joy in creating value. Exchanging views here have made me richer, your replies have brought me joy, and though my lack of background makes me less capable of repaying that knowledge with knowledge, i strive to add what i can to make us both richer, so i can come back for more joy tomorrow. I know of another Thompson known for its good grip and detachable buttstock, you too seem to have a good grip but your base seems firmly in place, so if nothing else i like to think my doubts offering you a chance to prove your views right.

On mind-knowing i may agree, that knowledge merely is knowledge, i may even accept a possibility of all-knowing, that all that is can be expressed in less than all that is - that the pixels on your screen making up "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" could be known as the pixels making up "A" and repeated 16 times which would hold all the information in less space than the reality itself, though i can't help but see the postulation that we CAN know all, as being arbitrary, in relation to reality, as it would rule out arbitrary unknown reality as a real possibility.

On dualism vs. monism, i find all value in dualism, though i wouldn't rule out dualism as a fluctuation in monism, or pluralism as fluctuations in dualism, though any interference or fluctuation may ultimately require initial dualism. If the egg or the chicken came first seems to be irrelevant in our ability to relate to either.

Post 13

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 8:58am

Soren,

--------------
... i find joy in creating value. Exchanging views here have made me richer, your replies have brought me joy ...
--------------

What warm and kind words, Soren! I'm flattered, and my initial fear that you'd slipped into the abyss of existential nihilist (which only goes one way ... down ... to fatalism), has been sufficiently dispelled.

I enjoy interaction with YOU as well. Your mind is powerful and your manners commendable. My third criterion in judging others worthy of continued interaction (authenticity) awaits, as it always does. Sometimes, it takes months for another's authenticity to reveal itself to me. When it does, then I'm at peace in trust -- so happy to have found another who is kind, insightful, and genuine. But I digress ...

--------------
I know of another Thompson known for its good grip and detachable buttstock ...
--------------

Good grief! My big buttstock is certainly not detachable [warning: performing heavy squats augments the buttstock]!

--------------
... if nothing else i like to think my doubts offering you a chance to prove your views right.
--------------

Too flattering, Soren. I enjoy an honest clash of ideas. It is the best means toward refinement in thinking. That which does not kill an idea, oft makes it stronger.

--------------
...though i can't help but see the postulation that we CAN know all, as being arbitrary, in relation to reality, as it would rule out arbitrary unknown reality as a real possibility.
--------------

Allow me to backpedal here. The postulated possibility that we CAN know all -- is a mere potentiality (like always being able to add another "one" to a previous sum, in an APPROACH TOWARD -- rather than away from -- infinity). As a potentiality -- as distinguished from actuality -- it is no longer to be seen as "arbitrary."

The one distinguishing feature of humans -- is unbounded potentiality (which stems from our rationality). No other animal has this. The thousands of languages, the thousands of religions, the unprecedented variation in going about our own personal lives -- there is absolutely nothing like this in all of nature.

To postulate that our body of knowledge will -- persistently -- grow, is NOT arbitrary. It is a merely the probable (not merely possible, or even merely plausible**) continuation of all of recorded history.

Ed

**plausible: That which is "more than" merely possible. That which is plausible is that which is both open to occur AND has a viable mechanism for occurring (in this case, our rationality). In cases where there is a history of understood regularity, future instantiations become probable (more than merely plausible).

Post 14

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 7:22am