Nope, the law of identity is incoherent and doesn't exist in physical reality. I'm extremely frustrated that Western Philosophy has reasoned about this extremel

Nope, the law of identity is incoherent and doesn't exist in physical reality. I'm extremely frustrated that Western Philosophy has reasoned about this extremely poorly and the assumptions made from antiquity seem to continue to be unquestioned. The Cogito, or other ontological foundations of existence which rely on appearances are completely wrong. "I think therefor I am?" How do you know that you are thinking? How do you know that appearances of thinking are actually in existence? It's possible that you did not think! and that what you believe to be existence is not existence at all. At best, you can say "it appears to me that I think therefor it appears that I exist". You cannot just escape radical doubt because of appearances. Also, the no-cloning (and the other no-go) theorems and bells theorem (no determinism) seem to imply that Quantum Theory has concluded that the law of identity doesn't hold up in reality. Objects are NOT equal to themselves. We do not know that a fundamental minimal quantized unit of time exists, meaning that we cannot say that "an object is equal to itself at a particular time". If we accept the Kantian thesis that time and space are the "vessel" or "canvas" of reality, than it's not possible to confirm that an object exists in the same point in time, and the same point of space with itself without a fundamental minimal quantized unit to measure those in. You should instead conclude that the metaphysical constitution of objects is ultimately in-determinant The law of in-determinancy would say that "objects can be infinitesimally close to identical with themselves" A =/= A. The left-side A exists in a different point in time and space as the right-side A. You cannot even think of these in your own mind at the same time, in the same part of your "mind-space". There is no verifiable measure of the "present" so we cannot constitute an object in exactly one point of time and space at a particular "moment" All of what I've just said is basically a more modern version of Nietzsche's revulsion to the exact same "A = A" crap that was being thrown around in his own time. tl;dr you don't know that you exist citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-broadcast_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-broadcast_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-deleting_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-deleting_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem