A way to summarise all of the above is this: to the degree that nature is a continuum, there are no brute identities in nature. — StreetlightX
The analog is indifferent to the digital functioning of the thermostat, while the digital, as coarse-grained, can only 'see' a threshold being crossed and is itself indifferent to the continuum of the temperature as such. — StreetlightX
The team has already built an analogue-to-digital converter circuit that implements ternary logic, a device that will only switch on in response to either a high or low concentration range of an input, and which is capable of producing two different outputs.
you're simply never going to achieve a 1:1 correspondence, as a matter of principle. It's like when applying a Fourier transform to an analog wave signal, you can in principle only ever get an approximation, and never the signal itself. — StreetlightX
A way to summarise all of the above is this: to the degree that nature is a continuum, there are no brute identities in nature. Or less provocatively, to the degree that there are identities in nature, they are constructed and derivative of analogic differences. Nothing is 'equal to' or 'identical to itself', 'in-itself'. — StreetlightX
Yes, but the considerable point is that this "unique existence" involves a temporal extension. So the principle which allows us to say that the thing here now, is the same thing as the thing which was here yesterday, or over there yesterday, is the assumption of a temporal continuity. Therefore the existence of the thing, as a thing, a self, is completely dependent on this continuity, which is assumed, with good reason I might add. If there was a moment of time, in that period of time, in which the thing's existence could not be confirmed, the continuity would be broken, and the assumption that it is the same thing would not be justified.So, the material identity of anything consists in its unique existence; in its being a unique entity... — John
The relation here is a temporal one. The thing is related to itself at a before or after moment in time, and this produces the temporal continuity of existence of a thing. The point though, is that the thing is not identified as being the same as itself, through some formal principle, such that it would have the same description from one moment to the next, because the thing is naturally changing in time. So it is identified as being the same as itself through some principle of temporal continuity, not through some formal principles describing what it is and is not.Nothing is "identical itself" not because the logic is incoherent (i.e. "identical to itself" means nothing or is a contradiction), but rather because "identical to itself" doesn't escape posting a relation. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The type of identity commonly referred to in logic, is what I would call formal identity. A thing is identified by a form, or formula, such that its identity is based in "what" it is, according to the logical formula. It is impossible that the thing referred to by the word or symbol is anything contrary to what is described by the formula, or else it would not be the thing described. The other type of identity, I would call material identity. This is what Aristotle referred to when he said that a thing is the same as itself. Here, a thing is identified not by a form or formula of what it is, but by itself. The identity of the thing is not to be found in a description or formula, of what the thing is, but within the thing itself. — Metaphysician Undercover
I can see how an analog system can deal, albeit somewhat fuzzily, with exclusion and inclusion.I don't see why an analog system can't deal with or include negation or identity — The Great Whatever
-I don't see what's to be gained from cordoning off what is a transcedental addition versus what is really in nature 'in itself,' and there seems to be no interest in the project if you're not a Kantian (the question of 'is identity in the mind/language/computer, or in the thing itself?' is only of interest to someone with Kantian assumptions) — The Great Whatever
-I don't see why an analog system can't deal with or include negation or identity — The Great Whatever
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.