>>11122603Just a reminder that every piece of knowledge you have, including the correct (albeit misinterpreted through your insane lense) notion that existence exists independent of our consciousness, was arrived at through the recognition of fact of identity. Ergo, any of your naive and bankrupy attempts at discrediting it inexorably require its acceptance to be formulated and checked.
The law of identity is simply the recognition that entities are what they are. You are unwittingly defending the notion that things are not what they are, because you are fundamentally confused about the nature of metaphysics and epistemology. Because your KNOWLEDGE or UNDERSTANDING of a given phenomenon is limited and potentially false, it DOES NOT FOLLOW that A is not A. It merely means that your picture of A was not sufficiently comprehensive. This is at the heart of all of this. What you see and what conclusions you draw from them ARE NOT THE SAME THING. But any conclusion you draw about anything inevitably refers to whatever it is you're seeing. The extent to which your interpretation abides by identity and does not smuggle in any theory, it will be correct.
I will repeat: The only reason you even have a concept of "nature" to defend like a zealot is because you see existence and identify it as existing.
I am in NO WAY promoting primacy of consciousness. Existence exists, and consciousness perceives it.
Ironically, people who use things like Relativity and Quantum to promote "curved space" or "superpositions" are doing precisely what it is you accuse me of: taking the interpretive concepts of the mind's observation of phenomena and taking them as metaphysical, rather than epistemological.
e=mc^2 describes something. it does not define it.
