God???

[Kelly Jones]

The totality is by simple definition, referring to everything. This is infinite and cannot be, in the words of Heinlein, "grokked" (understood in its entirety) as, by definition it includes all things, the corresponding negations, and every possible existence, nonexistence, contradiction, malediction, limited edition :) (and so on) of that thing. Which leads one to logically conclude that, if Totality is infinite, then A does not equal A. Well I guess that at some junctures it does, but it would hardly be reliable.

This is a misunderstanding of the law of identity. It's assuming, wrongly, that A stands for something specific, namely, the Totality, in order to identify the Totality as itself. But obviously, to make that act of identification, A=A must exist as a law prior to that act of identification. It is therefore never revoked by any attempt to use it, or deny it.

I was not referring to A as the totality. I was saying that if Totality is infinite then A does not equal A. For ANY definition of A.

Go and read my response again.

.

[Talking Ass]

Kelly,

Consider the following:

'Go and read my response again.'

and

'Go, and read my response again.'

The second is far more fitting to the topic title, I think.

[Tomhargen]

Assuming the infinite, everything must happen in every possible way. So there must me multiple times and places where my chair is not a chair. There must be a place where A does not equal A. Assuming the infinite, that is inescapable.

[Anders Schlander]

Assuming the infinite, everything must happen in every possible way. So there must me multiple times and places where my chair is not a chair. There must be a place where A does not equal A. Assuming the infinite, that is inescapable.

isn't it pretty meaningless to start saying that chairs are not suddenly chairs, and circles aren't circles? For that to be possible they'd have to mean different things. First a chair would mean a chair, but then it suddenly means a round ball. So for one person the round ball isn't a a chair chair, but a round ball, yet, still a round ball. Trying to change a specific meaning into something else utilizes A=A to determine that it is 'not' a chair, but another item. Hence, even places where a chair is not a chair, the not-chair is determined as what it is, namely, a not-chair.

You are using two different A=A's to say that A=/=A, instead of saying A=A you're saying a=/=b.

[Tomhargen]

Okay while I do agree with what your saying, for the sake of obstinacy, if anything anywhere is infinite, it includes all possible forms of itself at all possible time periods. Basically, assuming the infinite, there MUST be a time when A=/=A.

[Tomhargen]

Read the Hitchhikers Guide. He says that in an infinite universe, everything happens.

[Talking Ass]

Tome writes: "there MUST be a time when A=/=A."

That time is NOW, Tom.

[Steven Coyle]

As a data technician, A=A only encodes "truth variable time" - there is much more than a lesser maha.

[Tomhargen]

Maybe I'm just unintelligent but I don't understand you Steven. Explain as to a 15 year old just in case I'm to dull.

[Steven Coyle]

Well, if you can read it with "we re" then it makes sense.

[Tomhargen]

What?

[Kelly Jones]

Okay while I do agree with what your saying, for the sake of obstinacy, if anything anywhere is infinite, it includes all possible forms of itself at all possible time periods. Basically, assuming the infinite, there MUST be a time when A=/=A.

The reason why I asked you to reread my post, was because you still were, and are, making a mistake about the meaning of A=A. For any definition of A, whatsoever, there is automatically a prior reliance on the law of identity. That is, the law of identity is not being arbitrarily defined; it is intrinsic to any definition of anything. It is not as if A is actually being defined as something specific, relative to something else, and therefore can be negated. The only way your argument can make sense is if you believe that "not-A" is an identity that is something other than "not-A", but that is both clearly not the case, and internally contradictory nonsense (which you don't believe anyway).

.

[Kelly Jones]

Read the Hitchhikers Guide. He says that in an infinite universe, everything happens.

Adams was joking. It's not possible to coherently assert that impossibilities are possible, not only because it's illogical, but also because it is disproved by reality. The concept of impossibility is simply a way of understanding what can/could never be; it relies on the idea of illogicality for its definition. So, while illogicality is certainly possible, logicality indicates that the impossible cannot exist. This is not an empirical matter.

.

[paco]

Picture yourself already married. That is totality.

[paco]

God,

I am a SS, cuz you turned me into one.

[Kunga]

NOW WE'RE TALKING !!!

i've been bored for such a long time... until i bumped into this guy recently !!!!

http://www.youtube.com/user/nutopiansg# ... Or3zC-VkyE


ENJOY !

[paco]

Explain what?

The ease of a lot and try not.

[Tomas]

Explain what?

The ease of a lot and try not.

Still dropping LSD, paco?

[paco]

Eve's dropping.