A=A is still wrong, Part 1

Addressing Objections from ‘A=A: Epitome of Reason or Apex of Nonsense.

Today’s post references my original piece from 9/13/2023, A=A: Epitome of Reason or Apex of Nonsense.

Below, I try to address a key objection that keeps rearing its head in response to that initial post.

(First, here is a foreword (added 25 November, 2023.) I’ve been chasing this concept for decades. I assume it’s a lifelong curse, to refuse that “A is A” is the foundation of all rational thought. My argument might seem sophomoric or vacuous but I’m convinced this is merely a failure of my words to do the concept justice.

A=A, while self-evident within the context of language and denotation, encounters fatal issues in the context of the actual universe. The act of denoting an object as "A" inherently simplifies and reduces the complexity of that being named, disconnecting our language from the real world's multifaceted nature.

There’s a strain of fanaticism that professes to think otherwise. The so-called primacy of A is A — perhaps a pragmatism of sorts, but fanatical nonetheless — refuses to acknowledge that the linguistic and conceptual frameworks we create are not the Universe itself. If truth be our directional choice, "A equals A," ought to be subservient to the fundamental recognition of our epistemic boundaries. This recognition is the true cornerstone of rational inquiry — not “A is A.” This cornerstone crumbles if we don’t guard it tenaciously.)

What is A=A?

The invocation of 'A' in 'A=A', or any concept for that matter, is not some lofty flight in the rarefied air of pure logic. No, it's far more grounded, literally. It's entrenched in the dense, tangible matter of our brains. Every time we utter or ponder 'A=A', we're not operating in a realm of abstract logic. We are, whether we like it or not, dealing with a brain object – a physical entity subject to the laws of physics and biology.

The law of identity, this revered bastion of logical certainty, becomes a “game” the moment it enters our thoughts or speech.

Why? Because these very acts are physical processes. They're not divorced from the material reality of our existence. The assertion of 'A=A' as an absolute truth fails to acknowledge its own embodiment in the neurons and synapses of our brain.

In this light, suggesting that my original post conflates the realms of logic and metaphysics is to miss the post’s very essence. My argument here isn't a conflation; it's a conscious, unapologetic challenge to the purported separation of these realms.

If you want to challenge something that I’ve steel manned, start with this: all discourse, be it logical or metaphysical, is inherently a discourse about the physical world – the only world we can genuinely know and speak of. The law of identity, thus, loses its supposed PURITY the instant it's thought or articulated. It's not an abstract axiom floating in a vacuum; it's a concept inextricably linked to our physical being.

Again, we declare 'A=A', we're not just stating a logical truth; we're manifesting a physical reality.

Whether this is a radical rethinking of how we understand and engage with such logical principles, or just an obvious observation is irrelevant to me. My only goal here is to acknowledge the physical basis of conceptual thought; it's about embracing this physical basis as the core of our philosophical inquiries and assertions, and for good, solid reasons.

I’d end by saying, look, while I seem to be transfixed on grounding 'A=A' in the physical, I won’t speculate on what lies beyond our material grasp, if anything. That realm is unknown and, crucially, unknowable.

In that enigmatic realm, if it exists at all, A might indeed equal A. But, we also have no basis, no grounding, no business in asserting that identity holds in this realm.

To do so would be to build castles in the air, founded on nothing more than a wish, a fancy. My goal is to show what a discourse on identity looks like when our assertions are rooted in what we can know, what we can observe.

Beyond that, we enter the domain of the unknowable, where our words, our logic, our concepts lose their footing, drifting into the void of speculation.

So again, seeking refuge in the realm of logic to defend ‘A=A’ is futile. Any such attempt inevitably manifests into a wholly physical entity, as far as the mind’s eye can hope to see. Logicus, quantum scimus, physicus est. Logic, as far as we can know, is physical.

For the precursor to this post please check out A=A: Epitome of Reason or Apex of Nonsense.