Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent. — elucid

Since non-existence can never be productive, much less be, Existence is eternal, as ever, and so it is not anything in particular, as random, given no possible inputs to it—that has no beginning, and so Existence is Everything, although about as unmeaningful as a Library of Babel of all possible books.

Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent. — elucid

You have to decide what you mean by "existent." And then what you mean by "change." Work within those constraints. Then if you like change your definitions and see what follows. But as it stands, without guide rails, so to speak, the conversation is already an aporia.

Since non-existence can never be productive, much less be, — PoeticUniverse

There was time I did not exist....

What's that supposed to do with change? And yes, change is possible. I'm just about to change out of my work uniform.

These are tautological, analytic, truths, because the negation of them is a contradiction.

Other than that, they contain no information. Giving conditions for circles, e.g., says nothing about the circle. Therefore they are generally useless propositions.

And, as stated, they have nothing to do with change.

You have to decide what you mean by "existent." And then what you mean by "change." Work within those constraints. Then if you like change your definitions and see what follows. But as it stands, without guide rails, so to speak, the conversation is already an aporia.

I find defining change extremely difficult, so I will not do it. The statements, ultimately, are saying that a circle is always a circle, a square always a square, a man always a man, etc.

something existent always existent, — elucid

The Block Universe?

So instead of defining change, you’re going with the impossibility that a thing can be other than it is, and by that, denying change.

I find defining change extremely difficult, — elucid

Welcome to the club. But you're also missing a point. You're not being asked to determine what change is, merely to define it for present purpose to guide discussion. If the definition is a good one, then we'll find it so. If it's not-so-good, back to the drawing board, but with new insight.

a circle is always a circle, a square always a square, a man always a man, something existent always existent, and something non-existent is always non-existent, etc. — elucid

And if you will think about this a bit, you'll see lots of problems. But that's an exercise I leave for you.

You're not being asked to determine what change is, merely to define it for present purpose to guide discussion. If the definition is a good one, then we'll find it so. If it's not-so-good, back to the drawing board, but with new insight.

I do not think that defining change is important because my statements are saying that things remain the same all the time, which I believe no one needs help understanding.

So instead of defining change, you’re going with the impossibility that a thing can be other than it is, and by that, denying change.

I believe that you did not understand correctly my statements.

The statements, ultimately, are saying that a circle is always a circle, a square always a square, a man always a man, something existent always existent, and something non-existent is always non-existent, etc. — elucid

You didn't answer my question, but never mind. I'll proceed without your answer. A shape can change from a circle to a square. There are animations of this which you can find online. Either you're saying something logically irrelevant or you're saying something false. The statement that change is impossible is demonstrably false.

You didn't answer my question, but never mind. I'll proceed without your answer. A shape can change from a circle to a square. There are animations of this which you can find online. Either you're saying something logically irrelevant or you're saying something false. — S

Again, I feel that you did not understand my statements.

Again, I feel that you did not understand my statements. — elucid

What do you mean, "again"? This is the first time that you've bothered to reply to me, and you haven't bothered to explain why you think that, or to clarify your point, or properly address any of my replies. Just telling me that you feel that I didn't understand your statements is not helpful.

What do you mean, "again"? This is the first time that you've bothered to reply to me, and you haven't bothered to explain why you think that, or to clarify your point, or properly address any of my replies. — S

I am very sorry that you did not understand. My statements are extremely easy to understand, and, at the moment, I do not know how to get more clear with you.

Hi,

I would like comments on the following statements. It is about change.

Statement 1:

A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle. Therefore, a circle is something that is never anything that is not a circle.

Statement 2:

Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent. — elucid

When changes occur, the stuff that changed isn't the same after the change as it was before the change, sure. That's the whole idea of change. If it were the same, then it wouldn't be the case that it changed.

I believe that you did not understand correctly my statements. — elucid

Oh, I correctly understood what you said alright, but apparently not what you meant by what you said.

You asked for comment, so......I commented.

I am very sorry that you did not understand. My statements are extremely easy to understand, and, at the moment, I do not know how to get more clear with you. — elucid

I am very sorry that you're not only presumptuous, but incompetent.

When changes occur, the stuff that changed isn't the same after the change as it was before the change, sure. That's the whole idea of change. If it were the same, then it wouldn't be the case that it changed. — Terrapin Station

Hold on a minute, now you're being sensible again. How can you just switch it up like that? You're like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

I am very sorry that you're not only presumptuous, but incompetent.

I will use a circle in the following example. Basically, I am saying that a circle is never the same as something that is not a circle. Saying that I am wrong is saying that a circle is sometimes the same as a square or something else that is not a circle, is that something you agree with?

Hold on a minute, now you're being sensible again. How can you just switch it up like that?

I did not make that comment.

I will use a circle in the following example. Basically, I am saying that a circle is never the same as something that is not a circle. Saying that I am wrong is saying that a circle is sometimes the same as a square or something else that is not a circle, is that something you agree with? — elucid

I understand and agree with that. Are you going to move on to my queries and objections, or is this all that you are capable of? The law of identity doesn't entail that change is impossible.

I understand and agree with that. Are you going to move on to my queries and objections, or is this all that you are capable of?

Are you saying that you agree that a circle is sometimes the same as a square?

Are you saying that you agree that a circle is sometimes the same as a square? — elucid

No, you pillock.

Hold on a minute, now you're being sensible again. How can you just switch it up like that?

I did not make that comment. — elucid

Yes, it was intentionally directed at Terrapin Station. He was sensible there, whereas elsewhere he says ludicrously unbelievable things.

No, you pillock.

Then, I presume that you agree that a circle is never the same as something not a circle which means a circle is never anything not a circle.

You don't need my explicit agreement to get on with it. Just get on with it.

elucid What's that supposed to do with change?

Basically, it is saying that something cannot ever be anything that is not what it is, so it has to with change.

so let me see if I understand what you are saying. I am going to slightly alter the terms here, but maintain your logic.

Statement 1:

A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle. Therefore, a circle is something that is never anything that is not a circle.

So basically: A is never the same as anything that is not A. Therefore, A is something that is never anything that is not A.

Statement 2:

Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent.

So basically: A is never the same as B. Therefore, A is never B.

I simplified the argument using letters instead of your terms, but the logic is identical (irony intended)

Your argument here is that change is impossible. However, if you add certain elements to A, and it becomes B, haven't you produced a change? So even if the law of identity holds, transmutation is a possibility correct? It therefore follow that your second statement is false, and that your first statement is simply the law of identity, which as pointed out, does not negate transmutation from A to B given particular conditions.

Statement 1:

A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle. Therefore, a circle is something that is never anything that is not a circle. — elucid

It might not be EXACTLY the same, though even a circle and another circle are not exactly the same. A circle can share a trait with something not a circle. For example a circle and a square are both shapes, in that way they are the same.
Either way, I don’t see how this shows change is impossible. As has been pointed out to you, change is demonstrable. Is this purely a logical exercise, like Zenos paradox?

Statement 2:

Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent. — elucid

Ok, and? Your point? You think that shows change is not possible?

Your argument here is that change is impossible. However, if you add certain elements to A, and it becomes B, haven't you produced a change? So even if the law of identity holds, transmutation is a possibility correct? It therefore follow that your second statement is false, and that your first statement is simply the law of identity, which as ↪S pointed out, does not negate transmutation from A to B given particular conditions.

If change is impossible, you cannot add any elements to A.

If change is impossible, you cannot add any elements to A.

You have not demonstrated it is impossible as I pointed out.