/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12595054

429KiB, 859x960, 98807EC7-6620-4A3F-9C04-5D79A16DEF1B.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 18 Jan 03:27:15 2021 No.12595054 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12595134 >>12595219 >>12597858

- [ ] If something (X) equals itself then every other thing must be different from it. If every other thing is different from it, then it must be unique. If it is unique, no other thing can be equal to it. If all things equal themselves (X = X, Y = Y, Z = Z, etc), then all things are necessarily unique. If all things are unique, their uniqueness must be derived from everything they are not. If their uniqueness is derived from everything they are not, then everything they are not must be what they are, for things only exist insofar as they are unique. Therefore, everything is what everything is not, and what everything is not is what everything is.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO yoneda.png, 94KiB, 486x512

Anonymous Mon 18 Jan 2021 03:56:51 No.12595134 Report

Quoted By: >>12595170

>>12595054
This but unironically

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO D11DB8EE-A883-4989-88EF-FEAAE6E9 (...).jpg, 102KiB, 966x1200

Anonymous Mon 18 Jan 2021 04:11:53 No.12595170 Report

Quoted By:

>>12595134
Based. Fuck Plato, Kant and Newton.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jan 2021 04:37:47 No.12595219 Report

Quoted By: >>12595259

>>12595054
>If something (X) equals itself then every other thing must be different from it.
Non sequitur. By definition every "other thing" is different.

>If every other thing is different from it, then it must be unique.
Unique in what way? 1 = 0.999... but they are not "the same thing" necessarily. They represent the same number, but it does not have a unique representation. If you are saying that anything which is different from "other things" is unique then uniqueness is a trivial description.

>If their uniqueness is derived from everything they are not, then everything they are not must be what they are, for things only exist insofar as they are unique.
Doesn't follow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jan 2021 04:53:42 No.12595259 Report

Quoted By: >>12595343

>>12595219
>By definition every "other thing" is different.
Yes, that is the point. Things are defined by difference.
>They represent the same number, but it does not have a unique representation.
You can use two signs to represent the same thing, but the signs themselves must be unique. No sign is exactly the same as another sign; no number is exactly the same as another number; no point is exactly the same as another point in time and space. If they were the same, you would be unable to distinguish between the two, as they would literally be the same. The only reason you know what one is is because it is no other thing, number, concept, etc.
>If you are saying that anything which is different from "other things" is unique then uniqueness is a trivial description.
That is your opinion.
>Doesn't follow.
How?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jan 2021 05:32:50 No.12595343 Report

Quoted By: >>12595366

>>12595259
>Yes, that is the point.
Then why mention something equaling itself? You haven't actually said anything meaningful.

>You can use two signs to represent the same thing, but the signs themselves must be unique.
Which just brings us back to what unique means. Obviously if there are two different signs then they are different. What is the point of calling them unique?

>That is your opinion.
No.

>How?
Uniqueness is not derived from everything they are not. Uniqueness is irrelevant. Everything they are not is by definition not what they are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jan 2021 05:42:32 No.12595366 Report

Quoted By: >>12595370 >>12596247

>>12595343
>Then why mention something equaling itself? You haven't actually said anything meaningful.
Do you think that things are not themselves, i.e. that they are unique?
>Which just brings us back to what unique means. Obviously if there are two different signs then they are different. What is the point of calling them unique?
Because they are not the same. You might not see why this is significance, but it is extremely significant for metaphysics.
>No
Yes.
>Uniqueness is not derived from everything they are not.
If uniqueness is not derived from everything that something is not, then how could you distinguish anything? If X was Y, how could you know that X and Y were different to begin with?
>Uniqueness is irrelevant.
Nonentity.
>Everything they are not is by definition not what they are.
Yes, that is the point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jan 2021 05:44:07 No.12595370 Report

Quoted By:

>>12595366
that they are not unique*

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jan 2021 13:56:38 No.12596247 Report

Quoted By: >>12597333

>>12595366
>Do you think that things are not themselves, i.e. that they are unique?
That's not what unique means.

>Because they are not the same.
I already said that.

>You might not see why this is significance, but it is extremely significant for metaphysics.
How so?

>Yes.
No.

>If uniqueness is not derived from everything that something is not, then how could you distinguish anything?
By seeing that two things are different.

>If X was Y, how could you know that X and Y were different to begin with?
Maybe they're not different. You're just being vague.

>Nonentity.
Non-response.

>Yes, that is the point.
You said the opposite.

None of this is science, math, or even logical.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jan 2021 19:35:03 No.12597333 Report

Quoted By:

>>12596247
>That's not what unique means.
When I say unique, I mean that it is not anything else. For instance, all the grains of sand on the beach are unique and different from every other grain of sand. Nothing can be exactly the same as anything else. Everything is unique and not unique simultaneously. Everything is both on and off.
>I already said that.
Then we do not disagree.
>How so?
Because it bypasses Platonism and Kantian metaphysics. Essence becomes immanence and immanence becomes essence.
>By seeing that two things are different.
Yes, for something to be different from something else it cannot be the same as that thing.
>Maybe they're not different. You're just being vague.
You are being an intentional sophist at this point. If they were not different then X =/= X.
>You said the opposite
You have not understood me. Difference is sameness and sameness is difference. Opposites are not truly opposite, nor are they the same.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jan 2021 21:25:37 No.12597858 Report

Quoted By:

>>12595054
Okay spinoza

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches