Ian Goddard wrote:
> CROCKPOT IDENTITY THEORY
>
> Since the popular definition of identity is
> atomist and states "A=A," which is to say
> that the identity of A is exclusive to A,
> that A is what it is due exclusively to A,
Rubbish. The statement "Ian=Ian" is not a denial that other entities
had causal influence on Ian's nature.
> and since nobody has ever been able to show
> a single example where this claim is true
(or what it might mean)
> -- 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 --
> it cannot be said to be a
> true identity theory,
A definition is not a theory.
> and logic therefore
> dictates that it must be a false theory,
> particularly when the identity theory,
> "A=A+~A," is never shown to be false.
Because it is vacuous. If it makes you happy to trumpet it as a
revelation, well, I'm glad you have the freedom to enjoy it.
"A=A" is *useful*. "A = the whole universe" may be interesting in some
contexts but where does it get us?!
> Even as the set of evidence supporting A=A
> is an empty set, people go on promoting it
> without so much as a second thought; in fact,
> many of its supporters fanatically attack
> anyone who dares to questions it. It there-
> fore follows that "atomist-identity theory"
> is properly defined as a "crackpot theory."
It is not for you to *define* another's theory. (I don't go around
defining Marxism; that's what Marxists are for.) You may *describe* it
as "crackpot" if you like.
-- "How'd ya like to climb this high without no mountain?" --Porky Pine Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 !! visiting New Mexico, end of March !!