2013-02-28T00:24:19+00:00 via web To: a(n) person, PublicHi.
2012-12-05T02:14:46+00:00 via web To: PublicDeleting identity, we're arguing that logical inference neither depends nor is non-separable from identity; thus, separable or independent.
2012-12-05T02:11:42+00:00 via web To: PublicAssuming identity, we're arguing that logical inference depends or is non-separable from identity. Thus, Zizzi can define entanglement.
2012-12-05T02:07:06+00:00 via web To: PublicAs entanglement is defined by the nonseparability of the state of two or more systems. IE identity and logical existence.
2012-12-05T02:05:29+00:00 via web To: PublicIf there is an equivalence relationship between dependence & separability then entanglement reflects identity's existence.
2012-12-05T01:57:38+00:00 via web To: PublicOn a related note, is independence and dependence equivalent or identical to separability and nonseparability?
2012-12-05T01:54:42+00:00 via web To: PublicLikewise, if I stand at the root of classical reasoning and seek to claim identity's existence, am I not arguing its dependence?
2012-12-05T01:53:38+00:00 via web To: PublicIf I stand at the root of classical reasoning and seek to claim identity's nonexistence, am I not arguing its independence?
2012-12-05T01:50:42+00:00 via web To: PublicThe concepts of logical independence and dependence would seem to me linked to an argument of non-identity.