Can you give reasons why infrared couldn't be measured in 1000 BC, or 1,000,000 BC? — ucarr

We didn't have the technology. And no matter how many more billions of years you spend next, there will be things beyond your technical capabilities, and give you a false image of the universe. Our technologies would have to invent technologies to make themselves see things like we see through our invented technology. And this chain goes on.

Does the question of the loss of info due to black hole evaporation raise a question about the complete accessibility of info, or does it raise a question about the completeness of existence, a larger set containing info? — ucarr

It implies that you've only discovered black holes and that particular paradox. There could be zillions of issues that are both forever beyond our reach and forever lost (affecting the state of the currently available entities). All of your constants and equations will always be based on a false reality.

perhaps we should focus on the info suggested by the paradox as a revelation of the incompleteness of existence, and thus a gain of info about what cannot be known existentially. — ucarr

You should focus on the unreliability of physics and live your life with an skeptical worldview towards everything. That leaves you with two choices: give up everything and live like a Taoist because there's no point (nothing is truly knowable), or keep seeking the truth out of humanity's greatest gift that we call curiosity and never rest.

Truth Defined — ucarr

So you've determined the truth. Great. Now what do you do with all this?

It's like an exercise in the aesthetics of symmetry and transformation that remains at the level of abstract contemplation. You wrap basic arithmetic in a poetic veneer, calling it the "dynamism of identity" and the "emergent property of truth," but what's next?

Mathematics already provides us with tools for describing such patterns, and they don't require such a flowery rethinking. In other words, you take a simple mathematical truth (a + b = c means c - b = a) and inflate it into a metaphysical concept without explaining how this expands our understanding of the world. The approach resembles an attempt to reinvent the wheel, but in a decorative form. Where is the breakthrough beyond what is already known?

So you've determined the truth. Great. Now what do you do with all this? — Astorre

You want to see practical applications flowing out of my bullet list, and you want to see that they evoke fresh insights into the functions of our natural world.

Consider this: the dynamism of identity maps to the statement, "Homosexuality is the substrate of heterosexuality." In our early years we're all homosexual-adjacent because you must love your own gender before you can begin to love the other one (reaching across the aisle assumes high self esteem in confrontation with profound difference), if that ever happens. This is AI fluidity lite.

If we can suppose AI will soon become humanoid indistinguishable, the dynamism of identity will support fluidity across all races, genders, cultures and languages within each individual AI. Pivoting between global identities will for each AI individual be easy and natural.

This change at the level of the sentient individual will stimulate exponential changes in the collective global culture of AI sentients. The transformation to a new AI driven earth culture will feature attributes unimaginable to humans, but symmetry and conservation will keep us connected to it. Are you fastening your seatbelt?

Truth is an emergent feature of linguistic and conceptual frameworks; it depends on the existence of propositions and shared criteria of correctness.

Sorry, but I haven't seen a single non-speculative statement here. So far, it looks like a collection of idealistic assertions adorned with the purple of modernity.

"We are homosexual at an early age" – why is that suddenly true?

"AI, becoming humanoid, will soon support the fluidity of all races and genders" – why is that?

"Do I wear my seatbelt?" – when I'm sleeping, no; when I'm driving, yes; when I'm driving and sleeping, I wear my seatbelt.

T-sentence: "p" is true if and only if p.

As definitions of truth go, this is The One. — Banno

As I read T-sentence, it invokes the bi-conditional; the two terms support each other in identity.

A=A pictures the bi-conditional in all of its beautiful simplicity.

...to human is to need creativity, even if it seems "pointless". — ProtagoranSocratist

Pointless activity flings open the shutters of the mind to worlds of possibilities. Pragmatists preach nose-to-the-grindstone productivity, but a world of grunts without dreamers piles up grain that rots in the sun.

Veritas est adequatio intellectus et rei

↪ucarr

This seems to me a definition of essence but not truth — JuanZu

I don't know if you're addressing Aristotle, Israëli, Aquinas or me, but the correspondence theory nowadays lacks adequation with QM's entanglement of intellect and ecology.

Being_Identity_Truth How do we disentangle this trio? I say each implies the others. Can you narrate a world of beings without identities? Can you narrate a world of truth without identities and beings?

Can you give reasons why infrared couldn't be measured in 1000 BC, or 1,000,000 BC? — ucarr

We didn't have the technology. — Copernicus

Things and their yardsticks are entangled. Since one implies the other, we see that conjecturing existence of things unmeasured is in fact a measurement of sorts of those unmeasured things. This is a convoluted way of saying that seeing a thing - whether literally or within the mind's eye - equals measuring a thing. Were this not so, how could a conjectured thing have any likeness to the thing? With no such corresponding likeness, the conjecture would be unintelligible.

Our technologies would have to invent technologies to make themselves see things like we see through our invented technology. — Copernicus

Technology is not entirely invented. If I wish to measure something in nature, my instrument of
measurement must bear some resemblance to the object measured. The agreement of tool to object is instructed by the object.

It's true that the sentient arises from the ecology of its environment. If the ecology of the sentient is a closed system, and yet the sentient dreams of things lying beyond the system, then there exists a suggestion closed systems are incomplete, and thus the closure of the system is incomplete.

Our lack of final knowledge of what we know doesn't compel us to conclude what we know incompletely is false.

seems like you completely missed my point.

...it [truth] depends on the existence of propositions and shared criteria of correctness. — Sam26

Adequation of intellect and reality, and don't forget the entanglement of the two.

...I haven't seen a single non-speculative statement here. — Astorre

The prudence of the pragmatist can sometimes make him appear far more astute than the theoretician. Reality pairs them together as a set never divided. Dreaming through immaterial possibilities seems the work of the addled fool. In our hardscrabble world of business savvy affirming courtship with expedience, speculation becomes a magnet for contempt.

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein were theoreticians. We respect their successes. We respect the practitioner more easily because his work begins with the success already won by the theoretician.

While it's true that theorizing should be constrained by conjecture, we don't know where the next correct idea in abstraction might arise. Without it, we might still be doing calculus on an abacus.

We are homosexual at an early age" – why is that suddenly true?

"AI, becoming humanoid, will soon support the fluidity of all races and genders" – why is that? — Astorre

Homosexuality supporting later heterosexuality is one of my conjectures that is subject to refutation.

AI identity fluidity, another possibly refutable conjecture, seems to follow from ease of transformation. Human gender fluidity is fraught with violence because gender boundaries are regarded as being unbreakable. If AI can do it easily and endlessly, why not? Being smart in life means being adaptable. Why wouldn't they flow through the spectrum of identities as adaptations to existential and social realities more complex than their human counterparts?

While it's true that theorizing should be constrained by conjecture, we don't know where the next correct idea in abstraction might arise. Without it, we might still be doing calculus on an abacus. — ucarr

I'd like you to grasp the difference. This wasn't an attack on your theoretical ideas, but rather an attempt to highlight the lack of content (in my opinion) in them.

That is, look, X can be expressed in an infinite number of ways in mathematics. This constitutes a certain aesthetics of equality. Many topics, including my own, are about this. I, too, am guilty of re-expressing X, and I consider this special (after all, I made it up).

However, this is called iteration for the sake of iteration. It has no content, and it certainly doesn't compare to Hegel or Einstein. Transcending limits begins when you postulate X = X + 1! And then you write three hundred pages of justification for it. If these truths of yours contained even something like that, I would think twice. If they also contained justification, I would think even more. But these truths contain nothing. And it's not that I'm perfect myself and am teaching here the right way. It's just that when you keep throwing the same judgments around in circles (like water with a spoon in a bathtub), there's no real breakthrough. Throw in some food coloring, salt, or potatoes—now that's some kind of soup. Justify why you can eat it for breakfast—now that's an idea.

Again, please forgive my bluntness. I don't mean to offend your feelings, but I want substance!

And I expect the same criticism directed at me, and I would be very happy to receive it.

And here's another thing. Of course, I don't like all the themes here on the forum. "Too simple," "Too dreary," "Too idealized." And I'm certainly not the only one. My themes may also be disliked or oversimplified. What do we do in that case? We simply pass them by, because they don't concern us. But here's the thing: in this passing by, there's no act of "genuine encounter." The theme flies by like a surfer on a wave. There's no contact, no interaction. It feels as if someone held a fish: all that's left is slime on the hand.

And this is already an idea, and I postulate it: something is born only in the act of encounter. If there's no roughness that leaves a trace, then there's no act itself and nothing at all. Non-existence. Nothing. No immersion, no participation. There's nothing further.

It's like a meteor flying past the earth: it burns out beautifully and vanishes just like that, compared to some meteor that hit the earth, which left a mark, forced development, forced the rebuilding of what had been destroyed. The meteor may have brought misfortune, but it "was." And here's my assertion: Being is born in the act of encounter. I call this characteristic "involvement."

And please, break this.

Two very different biconditionals.

I asked ChatGPT to pull out the argument in your post, and it offered:

Condensed Argument Form — Banno

• The law of identity (a=a) expresses a symmetry fundamental to logic and to being/selfhood.

• Logical reasoning (relations among terms) expands this symmetry outward into the relational world.

• Logic preserves genuine symmetries — falsehood is a broken symmetry.

• Personal identity mirrors physical conservation: the self is what persists through transformations.

• When false identifications occur, reason (logic) restores symmetry by distinguishing self from non-self.

• Art and imagination temporarily play with symmetry by allowing false identifications.

• Thus, our intellectual, ethical, and aesthetic lives are structured by a tension between the conservation of identity (a=a) and the imaginative violation of it (a=¬a)

.

You can do me a favor by specifying how each of the seven bullet points above is an empty banality that can give no instruction to a child in primary school. No scattershot generalities such as saying, "They're clichés garnished with five-dollar words." No, I want you to use specific details in your arguments. For example, regarding:

• The law of identity (a=a) expresses a symmetry fundamental to logic and to being/selfhood.

In response to this, you could attack its central premise: Identity_POV_World are a triad of interwoven ecology that's animated with life indivisible. If you can show they are divisible, then you might've killed the triad.

T-sentence: "p" is true if and only if p.

As definitions of truth go, this is The One.
— Banno

As I read T-sentence, it invokes the bi-conditional; the two terms support each other in identity.

A=A pictures the bi-conditional in all of its beautiful simplicity. — ucarr

This is garbled to me. The word "invokes" is confusing. Does it mean entail, imply, reminds me of, or what? I don't know what it means for two terms to offer support for one another in identity. Are you saying (p <-> p) = (p=p)?

Is your use of the word "picture" an allusion to Wittgenstein and you're suggesting it's his position that the two bi-conditionals are identical?

You seem to want to capture something poetic in formal logic. Trouble is that formal logic has very fixed rules. There is poetry in formal logic, for those that can see it, but it has to be shown to conform to the rules.

And what you have here doesn't.

Logic is not based on identity, as your first dot point implies. Nor is it a symmetrical expansion of identity, as your second dot point says. Identity is an add-on for certain forms of predicate calculus, and so well away from the foundation of logic.

Falsehood is not broken symmetry, as you suggest in your third dot, so much as a logical constant, ⊥.

And so on.

I know that's no fun, but there it is.

T-sentence: "p" is true if and only if p.

As definitions of truth go, this is The One. — Banno

As I read T-sentence, it invokes the bi-conditional; the two terms support each other in identity.

A=A pictures the bi-conditional in all of its beautiful simplicity. — ucarr

I use invoke to say that, "T-sentence cites the bi-conditional operator as its authority for its definition of truth."

Are you saying (p <-> p) = (p=p)? — Hanover

I think they each say something very similar. You have your identity. Your possession of same is conditioned upon the individuality of that state. You're mentally unsound if you're fundamentally uncertain about who you are.

Is your use of the word "picture" an allusion to Wittgenstein and you're suggesting it's his position that the two bi-conditionals are identical? — Hanover

A=A is a graphic image you can see. As such, it pictures the symmetry and conservation and mirror-imaging of self clearly and succinctly.

In your personal lexicon "poetic" denotes what?

...formal logic has very fixed rules... it has to be shown to conform to the rules... And what you have here doesn't. — Banno

Logic is not based on identity — Banno

Logical operators (∧, ∨, ↔︎, ¬) are not logical identities?

How do you write a sequence of logic without logical operators?

Nor is it a symmetrical expansion of identity — Banno

The symmetries of quadratic functions don't example symmetrical expansion of quadratic equation graphs?

The symmetrical quadratic functions identities are not identities?

Falsehood is not broken symmetry, as you suggest in your third dot, so much as a logical constant, ⊥. — Banno

If you looked into a full length mirror and saw your mother looking back at you, would you affirm the truth of the symmetry?

Logical operators (∧, ∨, ↔︎, ¬) are not logical identities? — ucarr

No. They are, as you say, operators.

If you think "^" a symmetrical expansion of identity, "=", show how. You can't, because they are very different things. That equations us "=" does not make any difference here.

But we are not playing the same game, and perhaps hot even on the same field.

Don’t be so quick to walk off the battlefield. I know orthodoxy is your sword in this particular battle, but improv offers you another rewarding role to play.

You can’t assemble a logical expression without the operators. Each operator has its identity, so operator identities are fundamental to logic.

The orthodoxy dictating proper use of a=a was originally improvised and subsequently propounded into establishmentarian practice. Okay, so now you’re a mouse running around in someone else’s clever maze. Don’t kid yourself you’re not looking for your own playing field, if you can discover it.

Don’t scurry back to establishment correspondents who’ll semaphore more of the same rote patterns enshrined in textbooks. That’s not doing the real work before us now. If you’re content to rehash the history of your predecessors then you’ll probably blow me off. That’s okay, but the fun I seek, for which you denigrate me as a woo- woo chaser after undisciplined whimsy, is supported by the imperative to live now fully while you can.

I need you to stay on the battlefield and work the trenches in close combat with me. Your job is to tear the guts out of my theoretical sallies, if you can.

We will both have a chance to win because you might reaffirm the foundation of your orthodoxy, or I might see clear to a new foundation.

I need your reasoned response to my question, “If you can’t write a logical expression without use of operators, how can they not be sine qua non identities?

New morphological expansions in math and logic is our work in our generation.

Ok, I'll play a bit longer.

Each operator has its identity, so operator identities are fundamental to logic. — ucarr

What am I to make of this? What is the "identity" of "^" or of "⊃"? Am i to write "^=^"? In what logic would such a string be well-formed? How do I assemble such an expression?

Don’t kid yourself you’re not looking for your own playing field, if you can discover it. — ucarr

I'm happy to go with what's already been decided, since it's coherence is verified by multiple folk. That is, the accepted logic is rigourous. I remain unconvinced that there is much coherence in your proposal. But I happily admit I don't understand your proposal.

Logic is going through a strong growth phase at present, inspired by various formal developments, by computation and especially by the advent of AI. Thinking of it as hackneyed or frozen would be quite incorrect.

Your job is to tear the guts out of my theoretical sallies, if you can. — ucarr

To my eye, I have.

Next?

To my eye, I have.

Next? — Banno

Tis but a scratch.

Mercutio or the Black knight?

The latter.

A scratch? Your arm's off!

Each operator has its identity, so operator identities are fundamental to logic. — ucarr

What am I to make of this? What is the "identity" of "^" or of "⊃"? Am i to write "^=^"? In what logic would such a string be well-formed? How do I assemble such an expression? — Banno

Go one day with your understanding stripped of $∧$ and then make something of that day's coherence.

Write any logical symbol as an identity. When you find one absurd, inform us.

Regarding $⊃$, attempt to place a small object so that it becomes uncontainable. Inform us when you succeed.

Am i to write "^=^"? In what logic would such a string be well-formed? How do I assemble such an expression? — Banno

Consider: $∧^2$. This is the higher order of conjunction. So, the conjunction of conjunction
might be written as $a+b^{a+b}$. What's an example application of $∧^2$? Suppose you're tracking the rate of acceleration of a giant comet moving on a collision course with earth. Knowing that the movement of the solar system's motion accelerates the acceleration of the comet, you must also know the acceleration of the comet's acceleration in the context of the moving solar system. So, the higher-order conjunctive acceleration of the comet is its momentum identity.

Conjunction, like every other thing, has an identity. Logic, therefore, unfolds and contracts as the valid continuity of identities. There are no laws prohibiting the multiplexing of a=a.

Identity Manifesto

Truth is an emergent property of the dynamism of identity.

Identity is a core element of the interrelations of numbers.
7=7 is an identity.

The dynamism of identity is exemplified by the myriad faces of transformation without change.

3+4=7, 6+1=7, 5+2=7

Can you know the truth without knowing yourself?

Is there any knowing divorced from a sentient self? For example, does an insentient computer know what’s in its database and what’s in its memory circuits?

The conjunction of insentience and knowing sounds like an oxymoron.

Can you participate in the act of knowing without knowing that you’re knowing?

The knowing of an insentient computer is a simulation of knowing borrowed from the programmer.

The essence of my structure of truth consists in two seemingly disparate things converging to a common point. In this phenomenon, the two things are true to each other at the point of identity.

Knowing yourself is the foundation of all your knowing.

Am I saying that all that you know becomes yourself? Yes, I am. This is tantamount to saying all that you know is known with a point of view, your point of view. Eliminate your point of view and there is no view; you’re back to the insentient computer.

Sentience resides in the personal point of view.

Rationalism says, “Don’t take things personally.” This an impossible task for the sentient. Strip the sentient of his POV and his memory collapses. Too long a stint in a sensory deprivation tank will cause this collapse because the subject forgets who he is. We only maintain a sense of self through contact with the world of other things. This tells us that we are the world.

QM tells us the same thing. We are entangled with the world around us.

Regarding causation, if a implies b, then we understand each term always converges to a common link binding it to the other term. Initially, before discovery of the causal link, a and b might appear to be unrelated. Through observation we discover that one event, the cause, always leads to another particular type of event, the effect.

As a clarifying example, consider the springtime onset of high volume, high density airborne pollen. When this occurs, the immunization doctor gets an upsurge in patients suffering with effects of allergies. Pollen density and allergies are true to each other as cause and effect.

Math is particularly good at modeling convergence of seemingly different things to a common point.

Two equations look different yet they share an ordered pair of coordinates that defines their intersection at a common point. Together they comprise a system of equations. The systemization of the two equations pairs them to a common point. Apparent difference, through independent truth to one position, converts the disparate equations into a unifying system.

Can someone write a counter-narrative describing a relationship of truth that doesn’t reduce to an identity, or reduce different-seeming things that converge to one identity?

Essence and truth converge at the point of identity. What is the essence of something? Its identity. The essential truth of something is defined by its identity. How can it be otherwise? We do not know what a thing is until we know its identity. We therefore cannot know the truth about a thing until we know its identity.

"A scratch and my arm's off, but the other impels a sword."