[FOM] Odd Thought About Identity
Paul Hollander
paul at paulhollander.com
Wed May 13 05:18:28 EDT 2009
The schema Fx stands for any open sentence containing x as a variable.
So I see no problem with Rxy etc. so far as schemata go, because they
are just open sentences containing x as a variable.
Since Rxy & ~Ryx entails ~(Rxy <--> Ryx), the inference from Rxy & ~Ryx
to ~(x = y), if it proceeds by conditional proof, appeals to the
non-identity of discernibles, i.e., to the contrapositive of the
indiscernibility of identicals, that is, to (x)(y)(~(Fx <--> Fy) --> ~(x
= y)). Therefore, when constructed as a conditional proof, this is NOT
an appeal to identity at all, but rather to non-identity.
But, if one constructs a proof by reductio ad absurdum, one appeals to
the indiscernibility of identicals, because one proceeds by inference
from x = y to Rxy <--> Ryx, which contradicts the premiss Rxy & ~Ryx.
So we have a nice duality here between conditional proof with appeal to
non-identity, on one hand, and reductio ad absurdum with appeal to
identity, on the other hand. The logical relation between the two is
contraposition between the non-identity of discernibles and the identity
of indiscernibles.
-paul
More information about the FOM
mailing list