A is A

[DavidOdden]

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

You said, and I quote:

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.

From this it is clear that you believe that the properties of other entities is a part of the identity of the instant entity. I simply applied that same logic to the relationship between you and me, rather than a chair and an electron.

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?

For one, it's false. For another, it can't be reconciled with anything even marginally related to Objectivist metaphysics or epistemology. In other words, you're so far off base that I don't see where to start showing you how totally wrong you are. We apparently have no shared assumptions.

In addition, your initial question which was founded on the idea that there is an entity A and such a thing as non-A (the complement of A) contradicts the presumption that there is only one existent -- if there is only one existent, then "non-A" is, indeed, reified non-existence, not simple "the complement of A".

In addition, I now believe that you don't understand the concept of "existent". What do you think "an existent" is?

[fountainhead777]

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?

I misunderstood you when you said A is not A, except in specific times when things are identical of course, to be disagreeing with A is A. Since you do not disagree with the Law of Identity your entire premise basically says: when objects are different they are in fact different than they were. Thank you for the obvious statement hidden under other random points.

[Marc K.]

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

For the Universe to be an entity it would have to be distinguishable from something else. Since the Universe is everything that exists and since non-existence doesn't exist, there is nothing besides the Universe.

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.

I'm not sure how it relates to your argument. If your conclusion is that: "A is now and only now A", I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you but we are disagreeing with your premises, which are just as important as the conclusion.

The law of identity is usually phrased something like: A is A at this time in this respect, which tends to agree with you.

But a chair is a chair, if you want to define the chair in respect to it having a free electron on the northern post (and you would have to define it much more precisely than that) then that is your A.

Let me switch to an elephant instead. You may want to look at elephant dusting habits and so you may identify an elephant with flies on its back but if I am unconcerned with this aspect and I just want to consider this particular elephant then A is A and the elephant is the elephant from this moment to the next. It is the same elephant no matter how many flies are on it or not, no matter how much blood has circulated or not. The elephant "dumbo" is not a different elephant a moment later, I am still looking at the same elephant a moment later and not "grumpy".

However, if I am concerned with elephant blood circulation, then the elephant may indeed be slightly different moment to moment: it all depends on which respect you want to consider and at which time you want to consider it.

[Jake_Ellison]

A is A.

More precisely, A is now and only now A.

Time has an identity, just like everything else. It can be an attribute of an existent, just like everything else.

So, "A now" is "A now" is true. "A from now until 3:00" is "A from now until 3:00" is also true.

However, "A is only now A" is false, because you're implying that actions don't have identity, only objects do, and that the Law of Identity cannot be applied to time. The truth is that the Law of Causality is the Law of Identity, applied to action. Actions, including the transformation of an object, have an identity, which includes the times of their start and finish.

[Danneskjöld]

I have to split this post, because I will have to make further thoughts.

But for the time being:

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

[...]

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

[...]

In addition, I now believe that you don't understand the concept of "existent". What do you think "an existent" is?

David Odden is right insofar, that I mixed the concepts of entity and existent, i.e. I set them as equals in the quotation of myself above.

According to the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

Existent: [...] is the concept of an “existent”—of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action. Since it is a concept, man cannot grasp it explicitly until he has reached the conceptual stage.

Entity: To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes.

So I agree and correct myself, that universe is not an entity. Nevertheless, Marc K. is claiming, that universe is not an existent, even though it fullfills the requirements by definition.

[Edit: I am not sure, whether universe cannot be counted as an entity considering this definition. I will have to think it through]

Edited August 8, 2009 by Danneskjöld

[Danneskjöld]

QUOTE (Danneskjöld @ Aug 8 2009, 09:25 AM) *

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

You said, and I quote:

QUOTE

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.

From this it is clear that you believe that the properties of other entities is a part of the identity of the instant entity. I simply applied that same logic to the relationship between you and me, rather than a chair and an electron.

No, you misunderstand me. I do not believe "that the properties of other entities is a part of the identity of the instant entity" generally. Only if (as in this case) the "other entity" is itself a part of "the instant entity" an therefore by changing "the other entity", "the instant entity" is changing with it.

So your analogy of chair/electron interaction and you/me interaction is simply arbitrary.

QUOTE

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?

For one, it's false. For another, it can't be reconciled with anything even marginally related to Objectivist metaphysics or epistemology. In other words, you're so far off base that I don't see where to start showing you how totally wrong you are. We apparently have no shared assumptions.

How can it not be reconciled with Objectivist metaphysics or epistemology, when it is derived from definitions, which are based on reality?

By definition universe is an existent.

(Ayn Rand Lexicon: "The building-block of man’s knowledge is the concept of an “existent”—of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action. Since it is a concept, man cannot grasp it explicitly until he has reached the conceptual stage. "

By definition, the concept universe includes all other existents and entities.

(Ayn Rand Lexicon: "The universe is the total of that which exists")

So how many existents exist apart from "universe" which are not already included? None. Therefore if you are asking me, if there exists only one really complex existent, my answer is yes, the only one really complex existent is universe. You can brake this existent apart to its components (i.e. entities and existents) but that does not change the fact, that nothing else exists on the same level.

This last part is not thought completely through yet. I will have to think about this one some more.

Nevertheless, you do not see where to start contradicting me with reasonable logic? Just start anywhere, and I will adapt my thinking, if you are right.

In addition, your initial question which was founded on the idea that there is an entity A and such a thing as non-A (the complement of A) contradicts the presumption that there is only one existent -- if there is only one existent, then "non-A" is, indeed, reified non-existence, not simple "the complement of A".

In addition, I now believe that you don't understand the concept of "existent". What do you think "an existent" is?

No, as said, this existent can be broken down into other existents and entities, but no "same-level existent" can exist, and is therefore the only one. It can be broken down to one entity A and the rest being non-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]

I misunderstood you when you said A is not A, except in specific times when things are identical of course, to be disagreeing with A is A. Since you do not disagree with the Law of Identity your entire premise basically says: when objects are different they are in fact different than they were. Thank you for the obvious statement hidden under other random points.

I never said A is not A. That is a contradicion in terms and I try to think and write accordingly. In fact my argumentation says basically: An object, that is, is different to what it was.

The statement does not seem to be obvious though. And regarding my initial post, the statement is not hidden under other random points. It is statet clearly and simply.

[Amaroq]

It's still the same chair. It's within the chair's nature to shift electrons and such. It changed on a microscopic level, but it's still the same entity, doing what is within its nature to do.

[Plasmatic]

"Universe" is an abstraction,a conceptual tool used for unit economy. It is not a metaphysical entity.

[DavidOdden]

By definition universe is an existent

....

By definition, the concept universe includes all other existents and entities.

Leaving aside the question of whether the universe itself is "an existent", you ought to be able to see why you have right there contradicted your earlier position that "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". Claiming that there is only one contradicts the idea of "all other existents". And yet you reaffirm this belief:

Therefore if you are asking me, if there exists only one really complex existent, my answer is yes, the only one really complex existent is universe.

Maybe you don't understand what you're saying. Screw the universe for a second, do you believe that the solar system exists, and therefore is an existent? And do you believe that the Earth exists, and therefore is an existent? How is that possible? The Earth does not exist "apart from" (not being in) our solar system.

nothing else exists on the same level.

Uh, what do you mean by "level"? What kind of metaphysical claim are you making when you talk of "levels"? That is a concept of consciousness, not a concept of existence.

Let me see if I get your position correct. Let's take just electrons, which I will (standardly) assume are actually elementary, not being composed of distinct existents. As far as I know, an electron's properties are its mass, charge, spin, and however you want to handle 4-dimensional location. Electron 1 (here on my desk) has different properties from electron 2 (there on your desk) because they are in different locations, and thus they have different identities. You take properties to be basic, so one set of properties defines one existent and a different set of properties define a different existent. That means that from moment to moment, the properties of an apparent electron change continuously since it is always moving, and from this if follows, these are not really the same electron, they are a series of different electrons because they have different properties. And there is an uncountable infinity of such electrons, given the assumption that space and time can be infinitessimally subdivided. It would be meaningless to talk of the properties of "the" electron between now and 1 nanosecond after now, because there are infinitely many time periods between now and now+1. An electron would not have a definite identity.

[Orion]

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

You're using the Law of Identity in an attempt to refute it. This is bad comedy.

[Hazmatac]

Amaroq was right, A1 A2 and A3 are STILL the same entity, because even if they are SLIGHTLY changed molecularly through a given course of time, the change is only SLIGHT and you are still talking about the same entity.

For example, say you drive across a bridge, which has changed slightly on a molecular level several times since you've been on it. Would it be accurate to say you just drove across 10 bridges, or one that changed slightly?

To give another example, lets assume you are cut by a knife, which SLIGHTLY changes your form. Are you a different person, or are you the same person but just slightly altered?

So therefore, A1, A2, and A3 are still fundamentally the same entity, A. It does not become B because it is slightly changed, it becomes B because there is a MAJOR change to it.

Peace

Edited August 9, 2009 by Hazmatac

[DavidOdden]

So again, I repeat, your understanding of "identity" is the problem.

FWIW, the dead Greeks went through this dance a few millenia ago, where it was also proven that change is impossible. Frankly, I think that Aristotle did the best job by distinguishing the actual and the potential. Obviously, change is possible, and it is not true that there are an uncountable infinity of existents just because you can reify the methodological result of the product of a couple of unbounded and continuous measurement scales.

[Danneskjöld]

First, getting to the question about existents.

Leaving aside the question of whether the universe itself is "an existent", you ought to be able to see why you have right there contradicted your earlier position that "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". Claiming that there is only one contradicts the idea of "all other existents". And yet you reaffirm this belief.

Maybe you don't understand what you're saying. Screw the universe for a second, do you believe that the solar system exists, and therefore is an existent? And do you believe that the Earth exists, and therefore is an existent? How is that possible? The Earth does not exist "apart from" (not being in) our solar system.

Uh, what do you mean by "level"? What kind of metaphysical claim are you making when you talk of "levels"? That is a concept of consciousness, not a concept of existence.

As I said in the post, where I tried to defend my position:

This last part is not thought completely through yet. I will have to think about this one some more.

So I have.

I would not anymore answer to the question, if there exists only one really complex existent, with a general "yes". I would want you to clarify your question first.

And this on the grounds of my thoughts on levels:

By saying of levels, "[they are] a concept of consciousness", you agree, that there are different-leveled concepts.

So is the concept of marriage a higher-level concept than the requiring concepts of man and woman, i.e. marriage consits of man and woman, but man and woman do not consit of marriage.

(I do omit here homosexual marriages, as it would not change the argument, but make more complex).

Regarding the context, by saying of levels, "[they are] not a concept of existence", I assume you meant, that they are not applicable to existents.

But by definition, any existent is a concept, therefore there exist different levels of existents.

ARL: "The building-block of man’s knowledge is the concept of an “existent”—of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action. Since it is a concept, man cannot grasp it explicitly until he has reached the conceptual stage."

Applying the levels to existents:

So solarsystems consist of planets, while planets do not consist of solarsystems. Therefore solarsystem is a higher-level existent than planets.

Galaxies consist of solarsystems, but solarsystems do not consist of galaxies. Therefore galaxy is a higher-level existent than solarsystem.

The highest-level existent possible is universe. There neither exists an existent besides it nor above it. It is the only existent on its level.

Therefore I would want you to clarify your question. If you are asking, whether there exists only one existent or more in gerenal, the answer obviously would be more.

But if you are asking, if there exists an existent, which allows no other existents except the ones, which are part of itself, i.e. which is the only one on its level, than the answer is yes, that is universe.

[Edited for spelling]

Edited August 9, 2009 by Danneskjöld

[Plasmatic]

You are making the most common mistake of confusing mental existents with metaphysical ones.You are applying epistemic rules that deal with our means of grasping concretes to existence as such.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Plasmatic

[DavidOdden]

I would not anymore answer to the question, if there exists only one really complex existent, with a general "yes".

That is sufficient. I don't see what good it does you to mix metaphysics and epistemology in answering a question about metaphysics. If something exists, it exists, and you shouldn't invoke notions of conceptual classification as an exception to a simple metaphysical question.

That is, as long as you are willing to say that protons, neutrons and atoms (amongst other things) "truly exist". I ask because they are not irreducible metaphysical primaries, so I want to know if you approach the question of entityhood and identity differently for atoms versus electrons.

But by definition, any existent is a concept, therefore there exist different levels of existents.

You should read ITOE on the distinction between proper names and concepts. George W. Bush is not a concept. Check your definitions again.

[Amaroq]

Even if you break the chair's leg off, it's still the same chair. It is within the chair's nature to have its leg broken off. It's the same chair, but missing its leg. The same entity that has been modified within its nature to be modified. Chair2 no longer == Chair1, because it is different. But an entity not being exactly the same as it was before doesn't make it a different entity. It makes it the same entity which has changed.

A = A doesn't mean Chair2 = Chair1. It means that Chair is Chair. Chair is not Chair and Apple at the same time. It is only Chair.

A is A, no matter how much time passes.

[Danneskjöld]

That is sufficient. I don't see what good it does you to mix metaphysics and epistemology in answering a question about metaphysics. If something exists, it exists, and you shouldn't invoke notions of conceptual classification as an exception to a simple metaphysical question.

That is, as long as you are willing to say that protons, neutrons and atoms (amongst other things) "truly exist". I ask because they are not irreducible metaphysical primaries, so I want to know if you approach the question of entityhood and identity differently for atoms versus electrons.You should read ITOE on the distinction between proper names and concepts. George W. Bush is not a concept. Check your definitions again.

Actually, I have not read ITOE yet, but as "investigating" in this subject, I have ordered it yesterday.

I realized, that I really do have problems with the definitions and have to do some more of defining the words (especially english being a foreign language).

Nevertheless, you are right, I should take the question as it is and not thinking of possible ways of different answering than the obvious.

To finish off this part of the conversation: do you really put metaphysically existing entities all on the same level? Don't you see, that there is a different level considering "concepts" AND "matter"?

ARL:"An entity is perceptual in scale, in size. In other words it is a “this” which you can point to and grasp by human perception. In an extended sense you can call molecules—or the universe as a whole—“entities,” because they are self-sufficient things. But in the primary sense when we say that entities are what is given in sense perception, we mean solid things which we can directly perceive."

As I see it, you regard an entity only in the primary sense. But that does not change the fact, that the entity in the primary sense does consist of entities in a "secondary sense" (lower-level entities) and is part of an entity in a "secondary sense" (higher-level entity).

Anyway, in the next days I will concentrate on the initial thoughts of this post, as there still is a lot to clarify.

[otemporaomores]

it is irrelevant where the atoms are in an entity, the fact remains that it has a nature and will until it ceases to be what it is. just because my molecular makeup shifts around everyday, doesn't negate that i am a man (identity) and i have rights. same with a chair, it is still for sitting. only after that chair and i meet our destruction, will we cease to be what we are, assume different forms of matter, obtain a new identity, and therefore a different nature.

[agrippa1]

Is this a Turing Test???

[BluNereid]

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]

What I think you are trying to talk about is context.

A is A in a certain context.

If something influences A and causes it to change, the context has just changed, so its no longer the Same A is was before, it's B. Then B is B. If nothing influences A (either itself, or some outside influence) it is still A.

The point of the statement "A is A" is to show an example of the law of identity. That something is what it is. It can't be itself and something else at the same time. An object can't be all red, and all blue at the same time. Context is an important part of the law of identity because we don't live in a static environment. Reality changes, based on its nature. When you say "The sky is blue" you are saying it is blue in a certain CONTEXT. The sky is black at night, or red/orange/yellow at sunset/sunrise. The context has changed during these different times of the day, thus changing one of the properties of the sky (appearance).

Try not to drop context, it is a terrible error and can cause most misconceptions/errors in any concepts.

Edit...

Reading your post again I noticed that you seem to be misunderstanding how to properly form a concept and I'd like to address it.

You speak of these minuscule changes in the form of your A as the atoms inside it move. Lets say your A is a table. Do these small changes in the atoms of this table, no longer make it a table? Do they make it something else? When forming any concept, you need to identify the fundamental properties of an object that make it that concept. A table has legs to hold it up, and has a flat surface. Does the small movement of these atoms make the legs disappear or the surface change? No, they don't, and not until sufficient change has been made to the table to change one of its FUNDAMENTAL properties does it no longer become a table, or even your table. If you burn your table and it is consumed in flames it becomes nothing but ashes and is no longer a table. That again leads to me previous paragraph. The context has changed (i.e. burning) and your A is no longer an A anymore. Again, the statement A is A still remains true, in the original context (unburned table).

Edited September 5, 2009 by BluNereid

[Grames]

This entire thread is a demonstration of the confusion that results from moving back and forth from metaphysics to epistemology without a clear idea of the subject matter and boundaries of either.

A concept omits useless detail such as the location of the electrons of a chair. A concept is an abstraction from its referents, whether those referents are here or everywhere, exist now or in the future, are observed or unobserved. "A is A" won't tell you what "A" is or how "A" acts and changes. "A is A" merely affirms that there is something that exists, acts and changes in a non-contradictory way. To identify that "A" as a chair, then the slightly different "A" 3 seconds later as a chair also is an act of applied epistemology not a metaphysical assertion.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Grames

[Danneskjöld]

Actually, I have not read ITOE yet, but as "investigating" in this subject, I have ordered it yesterday.

It came a week ago, but I have not had time so far to read it.

I realized, that I really do have problems with the definitions and have to do some more of defining the words (especially english being a foreign language).

[...]

Anyway, in the next days I will concentrate on the initial thoughts of this post, as there still is a lot to clarify.

Have not had time for that specifically either.

What I think you are trying to talk about is context.

A is A in a certain context.

If something influences A and causes it to change, the context has just changed, so its no longer the Same A is was before, it's B. Then B is B. If nothing influences A (either itself, or some outside influence) it is still A.

The point of the statement "A is A" is to show an example of the law of identity. That something is what it is. It can't be itself and something else at the same time. An object can't be all red, and all blue at the same time. Context is an important part of the law of identity because we don't live in a static environment. Reality changes, based on its nature. When you say "The sky is blue" you are saying it is blue in a certain CONTEXT. The sky is black at night, or red/orange/yellow at sunset/sunrise. The context has changed during these different times of the day, thus changing one of the properties of the sky (appearance).

Try not to drop context, it is a terrible error and can cause most misconceptions/errors in any concepts.

Edit...

Reading your post again I noticed that you seem to be misunderstanding how to properly form a concept and I'd like to address it.

You speak of these minuscule changes in the form of your A as the atoms inside it move. Lets say your A is a table. Do these small changes in the atoms of this table, no longer make it a table? Do they make it something else? When forming any concept, you need to identify the fundamental properties of an object that make it that concept. A table has legs to hold it up, and has a flat surface. Does the small movement of these atoms make the legs disappear or the surface change? No, they don't, and not until sufficient change has been made to the table to change one of its FUNDAMENTAL properties does it no longer become a table, or even your table. If you burn your table and it is consumed in flames it becomes nothing but ashes and is no longer a table. That again leads to me previous paragraph. The context has changed (i.e. burning) and your A is no longer an A anymore. Again, the statement A is A still remains true, in the original context (unburned table).

I do understand all of this and I agree (as far as I see by scanning this post roughly) fully with it.

This entire thread is a demonstration of the confusion that results from moving back and forth from metaphysics to epistemology without a clear idea of the subject matter and boundaries of either.

A concept omits useless detail such as the location of the electrons of a chair. A concept is an abstraction from its referents, whether those referents are here or everywhere, exist now or in the future, are observed or unobserved. "A is A" won't tell you what "A" is or how "A" acts and changes. "A is A" merely affirms that there is something that exists, acts and changes in a non-contradictory way. To identify that "A" as a chair, then the slightly different "A" 3 seconds later as a chair also is an act of applied epistemology not a metaphysical assertion.

I do know that I am right in what I wrote in the initial post, but I start to see your points. It is the application of the word "Identity" which seems to be used in a very narrow way (actually, I guess its more the broadest way possible, and only this way).

But you are right, I do not have a clear idea of the subject, that is why I started to write my thoughts down and check them. This process will be going on in the next few years...

[edited for clarification]

Edited September 5, 2009 by Danneskjöld