A is A

[Danneskjöld]

A is A.

More precisely, A is now and only now A.

Observe an entity A in the last 3 seconds, each second taking a complete picture of it.

Even if there is no interaction with non-A (non-A being a positive, meaning everything, that is, which is not A, i.e. its surrounding), there is still the change within itself, e.g. movements of particles and/or waves.

So each picture is showing a different state A₍₁₎, A₍₂₎ and A₍₃₎ preceding the current state A.

The higher the picturing frequency, the more different states A₍₁₎, A₍₂₎,…, A_(x) are observed. Furthermore, when the time span between two states A_(i) and A_(i+1) approaches zero, there exists in every chosen period an infinite number of different states.

Therefore A was never and will never be A again apart from this very moment.

That does not imply that A has emerged from non-A, but from a specific set of concrete non-A’s (A_(i)), i.e. from which A was before.

Thoughts?

[edited for spelling]

Edited August 8, 2009 by Danneskjöld

[fountainhead777]

It is still the same object and its properties do not arbitrarily change therefore A is still A. Each object, or A, can change its form but that is subject to strictly uniform properties that are unique to it. As long as the properties remain the same it is still A.

[softwareNerd]

A is A does not imply "A remains A". In fact, it does not refer to time as such, it is a statement about a "point in time", i.e. when time stands still.

[Nate T.]

This looks like a souped up calculus based version of the ship of Theseus paradox.

[Danneskjöld]

It is still the same object and its properties do not arbitrarily change therefore A is still A. Each object, or A, can change its form but that is subject to strictly uniform properties that are unique to it. As long as the properties remain the same it is still A.

What I learned in the past weeks investigating philosophy, I do have to take it by word.

So an entity A is A. That includes all its matter and its properties. Therefore, a concrete chair having a free electron on the north side around atom x is this chair having a free electron on the north side around atom x. If an instant later the electron has moved to the western side of atom x, the entity is this chair having a free electron on the western side around atom x and therefore IS NOT the same entity as before, i.e. IS NOT A anymore.

A is A does not imply "A remains A". In fact, it does not refer to time as such, it is a statement about a "point in time", i.e. when time stands still.

Exactly. And what I am trying to do is to apply this universal in relation to time.

This looks like a souped up calculus based version of the ship of Theseus paradox.

Never heard of this one, I will investigate.

Cheers

[Thales]

What is this, Heraclites revisited?

Just to clarify, remember that Heraclites said you can't step in the same river twice. The world is in constant flux.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Thales

[fountainhead777]

link

This topic already covered this pretty much. You have to get a few posts in though.

[DavidOdden]

Furthermore, when the time span between two states A_(i) and A_(i+1) approaches zero, there exists in every chosen period an infinite number of different states.

Your understanding of "identity" is the problem. The fact that right now I am wearing tan shorts is not part of your identity. You seem to be starting from the metaphysical premise that there is only one really complex existent.

[Danneskjöld]

What is this, Heraclites revisited?

Never heard of this one either. Have to check, what you are talking about.

link

This topic already covered this pretty much. You have to get a few posts in though.

I do not see any part, that would reject anything I have written.

[Eiuol]

If an instant later the electron has moved to the western side of atom x, the entity is this chair having a free electron on the western side around atom x and therefore IS NOT the same entity as before, i.e. IS NOT A anymore.

It is still the same matter and properties. What property of "chairness" was lost? It is still made up of a particular number of electrons. You can still sit on it. It didn't transform into a dog. It is still a chair as you classify a chair. If "chairness" DEPENDED on the position of an electron, then that would be a different story. Even if you're talking about a particular chair, the only one in the universe, it is still made up of electrons that move. They're expected to move. Part of its identity is possessing electrons that move (if electrons stopped moving in any piece of matter, who knows what sort of weird things would happen). If I then burned the chair into ashes, it obviously would not be a chair anymore, since a chair depends on its structure to actually be a chair.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Eiuol

[Plasmatic]

Ask yourself, "Why,even though cells are changing, electrons are moving etc.,can I still identify said existent/or entity from moment to moment?" The understanding of "essential charachteristics" as relates to Identity lies in the answer.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Plasmatic

[Danneskjöld]

Your understanding of "identity" is the problem. The fact that right now I am wearing tan shorts is not part of your identity. You seem to be starting from the metaphysical premise that there is only one really complex existent.

First of all, the fact that you are wearing tan shorts is never part of my identity. You mixed subjects in your statement.

Where is my misunderstanding of Identity? Why is the differernt position of an electron irrelevant to an object's Identity? How can something with a certain arrangement be the same as something with a different arrangement?

Yes, I do start by the metaphysical premise, that there is only one really complex existent: it is what we sum up under the concept of universe. What is wrong with that?

It is still the same matter and properties. What property of "chairness" was lost? It is still made up of a particular number of electrons. You can still sit on it. It didn't transform into a dog. It is still a chair as you classify a chair. If "chairness" DEPENDED on the position of an electron, then that would be a different story. Even if you're talking about a particular chair, the only one in the universe, it is still made up of electrons that move. They're expected to move. Part of its identity is possessing electrons that move. If I then burned the chair into ashes, it obviously would not be a chair anymore, since a chair depends on its structure to actually be a chair.

I am not talking about higher-level concepts with integrated concretes such as chairs in general. So a discussion about losing the property of "chairness" is irrelevant.

I am talking about a concrete entity. As the universal "A is A" is based on the integration of concretes and must be by definition applicable to all concretes, it is legitimate to apply it to the proposed chair.

I am not arguing, that after the changing position of the electron it is not a chair anymore. And electrons moving around atoms according to their identity does not change the fact, that the arrangement of particles in the entity itself is not the same anymore and therefore the entity cannot be called to be exactly the same.

[Danneskjöld]

Ask yourself, "Why,even though cells are changing electrons are moving etc.,can I still identify said existent/or entity from moment to moment?" The understanding of "essential charachteristics" as relates to Identity lies in the answer.

What are you talking about and how is this related to my posts?

[fountainhead777]

He is saying that the movement of the electron on the chair changes nothing. You can still immediately recognize that it is a chair and in every way it still acts the same. Simply put its identity has not changed due to that electron.

[Plasmatic]

Yes, I do start by the metaphysical premise, that there is only one really complex existent: it is what we sum up under the concept of universe. What is wrong with that?

This is the problem. The concept [epistemic not metaphysical distinction]"universe" is comprised of the units that are every individual existent. Every existent is a distinct particular that is bounded and maintains a set of essentialities that make it not everything else.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Plasmatic

[Danneskjöld]

He is saying that the movement of the electron on the chair changes nothing. You can still immediately recognize that it is a chair and in every way it still acts the same. Simply put its identity has not changed due to that electron.

Of course an object's identity never changes. A is always A at a specific time. What I am saying is that the object itself changes and is therefore not the same A in the same respect as before.

In terms of variables:

A₍₁₎: chair with the one electron on the north side of atom x

A: same chair with the one electron on the west side of atom x, after a time t

According to The Law of Identity: A₍₁₎ was A₍₁₎ and A is A.

But A was not and is not A₍₁₎.

[Danneskjöld]

This is the problem. The concept [epistemic not metaphysical distinction]"universe" is comprised of the units that are every individual existent. Every existent is a distinct particular that is bounded and maintains a set of essentialities that make it not everything else.

What exactly is the problem?

Is universe not defined as "everything that exists"? If so, than metaphysically universe is "only one really complex existent" (as worded by DavidOdden), existing of "individual existents" (as worded by Plamatic).

I do not see any contradiction.

A chair is "one really complex existent", even though it is built of "individual existents" (i.e. atoms).

[Plasmatic]

What exactly is the problem?

Is universe not defined as "everything that exists"? If so, than metaphysically universe is "only one really complex existent" (as worded by DavidOdden), existing of "individual existents" (as worded by Plamatic).

I do not see any contradiction.

A chair is "one really complex existent", even though it is built of "individual existents" (i.e. atoms).

No the unit nature of "universe" is epistemic, but even in the epistemological context, it is breakable into its individual components. Metaphysically there are only a multiplicity of individual entities.

[Danneskjöld]

No the unit nature of "universe" is epistemic, but even in the epistemological context, it is breakable into its individual components. Metaphysically there are only a multiplicity of individual entities.

So where do you draw the line between "being breakable into its components" and therefore metaphysically inexistent and the metaphysically existent? Are you claiming, a chair is not an enxisting entity, because you can brake it into its components (i.e. atoms)?

[Marc K.]

The Universe is not an existent. It is the sum of everything that exists.

[Plasmatic]

So where do you draw the line between "being breakable into its components" and therefore metaphysically inexistent and the metaphysically existent? Are you claiming, a chair is not an enxisting entity, because you can brake it into its components (i.e. atoms)?

Your first question is not clear to me. A chair is an existent. Look in the mereology thread for the quote I posted fro ITOE on "parts" etc.

[Danneskjöld]

The Universe is not an existent. It is the sum of everything that exists.

Then tell me one existent, that is not the sum of its parts and therefore an existent according to your definition. A chair is the sum of all the atoms it is composed of, an atom is the sum of all particles it is composed of, the particles are the sum of whatever they exist of.

So is univeres the sum of all it exists of.

How can you draw the conclusion, that universe cannot be regarded as an entity, i.e. as an existent?

And anyway, this is driving away from the originally intended subject of the post.

If you want to use this argument, show me how it is related to my thinking, that A is now and only now A.

[Danneskjöld]

Your first question is not clear to me. A chair is an existent. Look in the mereology thread for the quote I posted fro ITOE on "parts" etc.

You are claiming: "No the unit nature of "universe" [...] is breakable into its individual components. Metaphysically there are only a multiplicity of individual entities."

You seperate the individual components from universe and reach the conclusion, that universe is not an existent, but its components are.

The same argumentation works for a chair. Seperate the individual components from the chair, so you reach with this argumentation the conclusion, that the chair is not an existent, but its atoms are.

That is my question: why do you handle the concepts universe and chair differently?

[fountainhead777]

A is A is the law of identity not of equivocation. Every single particle in a chair is not the exact same as in another chair. But they both have the identity and properties of a chair. That is your problem. You are getting too specific. The movement of an electron never changes the identity of the chair and thus never invalidates the Law of Identity.

[Danneskjöld]

A is A is the law of identity not of equivocation. Every single particle in a chair is not the exact same as in another chair. But they both have the identity and properties of a chair. That is your problem. You are getting too specific. The movement of an electron never changes the identity of the chair and thus never invalidates the Law of Identity.

I do not (never have) disagreed with the Law of Identity.

But I am getting too specific? How do you want to analyze anything, if not getting specific and check it in any way possible to you? How should I check a fundamental universal such as A is A, if not by getting very specific and apply it to one object?

But considering your post, I conclude that you agree with my initial conclusions then?

A is A.

More precisely, A is now and only now A.

[...]

Therefore A was never and will never be A again apart from this very moment.

That does not imply that A has emerged from non-A, but from a specific set of concrete non-A’s (A_(i)), i.e. from which A was before.