A=A is Randian bullshit

Embark with me on a meditative stress inoculation therapy: let's gird our loins for the UBI debate by daring to question A=A.

In the realm of philosophical and logical discourse, there are fundamental axioms that we often take for granted, for example, the existence of libertarian free will, the law of supply and demand, mathematical induction, etc.

Challenging these givens can bring about eye-rolling rebukes and a consensus among those around you that you're pretty nuts.

No surprises there; these beliefs are the building blocks of our understanding of the world, forming many of our assumptions about reality and existence.

And among these foundational truisms, none is as (allegedly) self-evident as the law of identity, often represented by the equation A=A.

But what if we questioned this seemingly incontrovertible truth?

What if, upon examination, we found that in the truest sense, A=A is, in fact, false?

Let's refute the law of identity.

The law of identity, A=A, is typically viewed as irrefutable. Questioning it is silly to most, perhaps even a form of madness. The prosaic wisdom stubbornly (and smugly) dictates that A=A is a fact, a logical necessity. It forms the very basis of classical logic and mathematics, or so it goes. Common sense says that any object is, by definition, equal to itself.

But here's the problem: in the truest sense, A=A is false.

The universe we inhabit is dynamic, constantly changing, and marked by a profound degree of complexity.

Most agree that physical things are in constant flux. But what about an abstract concept, like a number, a circle, or "A," denoting the set of all things in all time and space forever?

Don’t those examples of A equal themselves?

I daresay they don’t.

Here’s why: The arrow of time perpetually moves forward, and all objects, whether concrete or abstract, change in sync with the universe. I defy you to think of one object that doesn't.

No concrete or abstract entity remains entirely static and unchanging, at least not in the truest sense, i.e., in light of empirical observation and the realities of the natural world as we currently understand them.

The point I’m after, stated simply, is that even abstract concepts lean on a shifting concrete substrate for their existence, meaning they too are in flux, never quite settling into a static identity. At least, such is the position of the physicalists.

I'm comfortable saying they’re right in the truest sense because, put bluntly, they rely on empirical evidence, prioritize observable and testable phenomena, and foster theories grounded in physical reality, steering clear from speculative metaphysics.

A=A, an expression meant to be the epitome of reason, is the apex of nonsense.

This may be a good time to ask yourself if you want to be right or happy. Because refuting the law of identity is an isolated position. You can expect to be mainly alone in your assertion and likely ridiculed.

That's likely because A=A is foundational to our most prized value systems. Challenging it risks toppling many beliefs we embrace to make sense of our lives and the world.

Particular beliefs have odd persistence, even in the face of clear reasons to believe otherwise. The most readily accepted ideas can sometimes be the most erroneous.

This quirk – the belief in false foundations – is also a problem in economics, ethics, politics, relationships, work, etc.

If you want to critique fallacious foundations, your work is cut out. But it's good work if you can get it.

Remember, we’re not just proving points for the sake of it; we’re uncovering deeper truths hidden beneath layers of widely accepted, yet potentially deceptive, axioms.

It's not just about being right; it's about striving for a truth that withstands the most rigorous scrutiny. (And if it reduces suffering and increases well-being, all the better.)

If you can stand firm in the noble task of challenging A=A, then navigating the complex landscapes of today's pressing debates, like those surrounding UBI, will be within your reach.

After all, if we can question the very fabric of logic, what's a little economic policy debate?