What is wrong in this argument?

Question

1=1 as on idea. One is equal to another one as an idea.
One on the L.H.S is not equal to the another one on the R.H.S of equality, if the one and another one are not ideas.
One and another one are ideas only if they are equal.
One and another one are not ideas if the difference between them is realized.

There can be no difference between one and another one, if there are ideas.
=>There can never be a difference among our ideas on different things.

Answer 1

Good argument.
Our ideas can be different only if they are on the same thing. Our ideas on different things can not be differentiated.
It is true.

Answer 2

1=1 yes

but

me = myself = I = my mother's son = a stranger to you = a human

these things, although different because of different perceptions and perspectives, make me, one entity, multiple things to different people. The idea of who I am to you is understandably far different from the idea of who I am to myself, neither of which is necessarily the entire truth.

There can be a difference among our ideas and naturally will be. In everyone, there is a lack of complete truth. What I truly believe about myself is not entirely accurate in accordance to what the truth about who I am is because of unnoticed changes. Life changes, experiences change us, we grow old, we learn, 1 only equals 1 in math. If all of math was simple, then all of life would be simple. Do we know how far pi goes? The Clay Mathematics Institute has questions whose answers are worth $1,000,000. What do answers to these questions provide us with? More theories that ask more questions......

Answer 3

Look, before you experience a temporary lapse of reason, bend your mind completely out of shape, and work your logic into a false and flawed corner, PLEASE, notice the following:

"1=1" simply means "1 is 1" (nothing more, nothing less). A number without an associated "unit", whatever it maybe, is simply a number. Notice if you say 1kg=1g, then you are obviously either: A] making an erroneous assumption and/or conclusion, or else, B] setting up an axiom where you are defining (or normalizing) 1kg to be equal to 1g in your calculations, for simplicity's sake, for instance. Not unlike many physical calculations where it is convenient to "let or force" Pi = 1 and hence not have to worry about it during the algebraic manipulation steps.

Also keep in mind that there are such things as: "proportionality" (where the equality can be established using a constant multiplier), "equivalence", and "identity". So, for pure numbers (i.e. w/o associated units) then, one can state:

6 is proportional to 2, because 6=(c)*(2) where c in this case is 3.

4 is equivalent to 2+2 or 4=2+2

and

1/=1 (with a "/" going through the "=", which due to lack of graphic resources here I am forced to show as "/="), meaning "1 is identical to 1" or simply "1 and the same 1".

Now, you can associate any kind of unit you like with numbers. They can be quantitative/objective units (as in kg, second, meter, etc.) or even qualitative/subjective units (as in ideas, etc.) - it really makes no difference at all, as long as you are consistent with your assumptions and/or definitions.

So again:

"1kg /=1kg" means "1kg is identical to 1kg".

However, you have to be very careful when you start "messing around with" qualitative/subjective units such as "ideas".

So, for instance, when you say:

1(100-page book) /= 1 (100-page book) what is it that you are really saying here? If all that is important is merely the number of pages (i.e. 100) then the /= applies. If on the other hand, you are also concerned about the contents of the books as well, then the concepts of identity, equivalence, or even proportionality may or may not hold. If we are talking about the same book, by the same author, same edition, same number of pages, same state of conservation, same etc., then we may say 1(100-page book of the same) = 1 (100-page book of the same). Notice the "=" sign in this case and not the "/=", simply because they are totally equivalent (and in that sense completely interchangeable books), however they are not identical (i.e. not one and the same book). Likewise, if you say 1(Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution) /= 1(Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution) then that is obviously identical. On the other hand, if you say: 1 (100-page book about Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution) = 1 (100-page book about Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution) then you may or may not be potentially in trouble (at least w/o further explanations and clarifications) since those books maybe equivalent, identical (meaning simply one book) or neither one. In other words, you are treading water in the realm of “logically undecidable propositions” – not exactly a comforting “SPOT” (LOL) to be in!

Finally, and as an interesting exercise, try to contemplate on the Quantum Mechanical/Reality interpretations of "Identical Particles". … I hope that was helpful – Good Luck!


P.S. You may find associated subjects in Philosophy of Science and/or Mathematics, as well as Set Theory and Type Theory quite interesting.

Answer 4

Perhaps nothing is wrong with the argument. There is logic in it. Philosophy usually presents ideas this way. But to a "common" person the supposed to be simple statements are presented in a somewhat complex way, making the reader confused instead of enlightened. That is why most Philosophers are considered weird. That is what is wrong with it.

Answer 5

'Idea' is the identification of an identity, a classification of similar characteristics, therefore identical, and they get identified.
If the basic premise of classification or the adoption of 'similarities' to be used are not identifiable, then ideas cannot be equal !
The whole edifice is about concept of concepts again !
Cognition of material objects, its characteristics, the manifestations, form the constituents of designating the 'similarity of characteristics' to be used for classification. Such classifications form the basis of identification, and then the nomenclature as identities, and the theory of such process as an idea. Standardisation of ideas are ideals, codes, clusters of processes etc...
An attempt to isolate a random selection of these standardised classifications would not itself manifest any cohesiveness unless supported again by a separate process of standardised selection process !

Answer 6

nothing, it may take more than i can perceive to say that there is some wrong, when in fact,I told another person who started her question with those three word, >>what is wrong<<, that is a defense not a question, so if you defend it I'll go along with that