Law of identity: is it wrong? 

Floyd Fp remember this is not my arguments, but yes the first objection could be objected to in that way.

“I strenuously object.” -Lt. Cdr. JoAnne Galloway (Demi Moore) / A Few Good Men ;)

Correct.

It depends on what you need the rules to do. Or how to map those rules to be coherent rules.

I can't say some names/words right it seems :D Yes, that is one quibble, the Quantom one might be more pressing, but for now its fine. I agree in maths it is fine and would not be effected unless some huge paradigm shift happened in maths. Again these are not my views, I'm just presenting the topic :)

yinYangMountain I agree that properly understood, the law of identity is as you say, but it can be seen in other ways, and that is my point here, it is debatable. My previous hangout this came up so I wanted to cover it. I wonder if pixels would answer your questionnaire.

You wrote: “…but it can be seen in other ways,…” Sure, if, for example, someone (I’m guessing pixels) changes the word “sense” to the word “space.” But then it’s not the same law then, is it? And that’s the point. I.e., when that change occurs, it’s an argument from redefinition. Informal Fallacy > Ambiguity > Equivocation / Redefinition So, if I define the law of identity the Greek way: ‘Something cannot be itself and not itself in the same sense at the same time,’ and if we understand what the sense/usage of “a” was, then only via equivocation / redefinition could it be rendered a different thing. I.e., an a = an a; or, this a is that a. The first is the law of identity; the second is a misuse of the law of the Greek/Aristotelian sense of the law of identity (my understanding). I.e., via equivocation it can become an incorrect comparison. ""It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." -President Bill Clinton. (He was correct.) Now, sure, some book can come along and change all this. But it seems to me, that’s what I’m now going to coin the Jorden Peterson fallacy. I.e., just change it till it fits what you need it to fit. :) You pondered: “I wonder if pixels would answer your questionnaire.” Note on the questionnaire: It was compiled using the thoughts of A. C. Grayling, Stephen Law, my mentor (Alexander at Cornell), and from the advice of Sam Harris and what he says often happens in debates. If you would advise any changes, please let me know. Your thoughts?

yinYangMountain I think its fine, might be to long? Video here was exploring other systems of thought on logic.

OTHER SYSTEMS “The queen told the curios little crane that she could have jam ever other day but never today, since today was not any other day.” -Lewis Carroll This language, DM, attempts the same slight of hand as the a = a issue. To avoid this, we need to know what is meant by (the sense of) a: - used as a vowel? - A specific handwritten/calligraphy written 'a' from the original Constitution of the United States? Ref. univocally - a word whose meaning is maintained throughout an argument. [The sense of the 'a' changed.] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - How can you be against faith when you take leaps of faith all the time: making investments, trusting friends, and even getting engaged? [faith] Science cannot tell us why things are: Why do we exist? Why be moral? [why] "DM’s never once been abroad." "As a matter of fact, DM has been in the Caribbean." "You cannot call visiting the Caribbean going abroad!" [abroad] - on time (your boss) - being within ten-minuets of the timetable (transportation provider) [punctual] Of course, I was using ‘expectation’ the way statisticians do, multiplying the probability of the returns by their size. I didn’t mean in the sense that we expected anything to happen. [expectation via sense] “exploring other systems of thought on logic.” Alice: I don’t know what you mean by “glory.” Humpty: Of course you don’t-til I tell you. I meant, “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!” Alice: But glory doesn’t mean a knock-down argument. Humpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less. -Lewis Carroll So via another system of the law of identity, Humpty can get it do exactly what he wants, right? [ala: Jordon Peterson: "Everybody is a Christian."]

yinYangMountain exploring other ideas of logic might indeed lead to such ideas, non classical logics exist and I am presenting them in very brief terms here.

The point is to outline possible objections to the law, not to say that it is in fact wrong.

This is a commentary on how non-classical logic approaches this idea. This is not to negate the law of identity.