Re: ATOMISM: Crackpot Theory

Ian Goddard (
Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:09:39 -0500

Anton Sherwood ( wrote:

>What is a crackpot? A crackpot might be one who misunderstands a
>generally-accepted theory and, by virtue of that misunderstanding,
>claims to find a fatal flaw in it.

IAN: I believe that the misunderstanding
is all yours, for you have clearly failed
to evidence such on my part. Here are two
examples of definitions of "identity," which
restrict what "identity" is to "same as" (I
have yet to find a popular definition con-
trary to this standard):

IDENTITY a statement that two mathematical states
are euqal for all values of their variables. [1]

IDENTITY 1. exactly the same, as in same houses; a
relation of complete and absolute sameness or resem-
blance between two things... 2. ...a meaning relation
that remains the same in our application of it... 3.
neither 1. nor 2., but a relation of sameness... [2]

[1] Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics.
[2] Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy.

If "identity" is "same as," then if I am different
than everything, I have no identity. The definition
of "identity" as "same as" is a total confusion as
to the nature of what identity IS. To the absolute
contrary, "identity" is "different than." Minus
difference is minus identity, and therefore to
define identity based upon the similarity of a
thing with itself is an error and irrational.

The difference between A and A is null, is zero,
and thus the statement "A=A" is a null statement.
Identity is 100% holistic and 0% atomistic, and
thus, a 100% atomistic definition is 100% false.

>> and since nobody has ever been able to show
>> a single example where this claim is true
>> -- showing A being A free from any associa-
>> tion to not-A --

>-- which is not an element of that or any other definition of
>identity that I've ever come across --

IAN: Well I don't know what definitions
your reading, but even the Three Laws of
Thought -- (1) A is A (2) A is not both A
and not-A (3) A is A or not-A -- could not
more clearly define the "identity" of A as
being 100% exclusive to A, which is false.

VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ---->