That means nothing, not even an electron, retains its (vernacular)
identity from one moment to the next. I guess Fluffy isn't Fluffy after
> The motion of A relative to A is always 0,
You're forgetting rotation.
> just as the identity
> of A relative to A is 0. The motion of A is derived
for "derived" read "measured"
> not from A but from the relation of A to not-A, just
> as the identity of A is derived not from A but from
> the relation of A to not-A. It's so obvious and per-
> fectly consistent.
Consistent with itself, yes, but not with how the word _identity_ has
been used consistently by everyone else ever since it was coined.
> Self-relation is null, is 0.
Is zero not a number?
> All identity attributes are derived by the relation of
> A to things that are different than A. This claim
> of identity I make is physically proven,
Attributes are not the same thing as identity.
You confuse identity with description.
Refute that, smart guy.
> the evidence for it is virtually unlimited.
How come you get to use tautologies as evidence, and I don't?
> The evidence
> for the atomist theory of identity is universally
> contradicted, and yet it is the prevailing theory.
As usual, you confuse definition with theory.
> It is a crackpot meme that has infected the mass.
You know, usually when someone says "everyone is wrong" we call him
-- "How'd ya like to climb this high without no mountain?" --Porky Pine Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685