Law of identity means P = P. Meaning that a thing is identical to itself. For someone to establish a refutation or the negation of logic, that very perso would also need to establish logic beforehand in order to debunk logic; which is a reductio ad absurdum, because presupposing something in order to debunk it is flawed within itself. So: you‘re not able to debunk logic because you would establish the very thing (affirmation) in order to debunk it (negation), which is a contradiction in the syllogism.

No, applying this physical principle here is pointless, as your assumption does not lead to the conclusion you need to refute me. For something to be identical, all its given properties or attributes must be identical; otherwise, there is a distinguishing feature between the two things, which means they are no longer identical in that sense (in every respect), but only in the vast majority of aspects or partially. The point regarding your analogy is that it fails because, whilst these electrons are interchangeable in one respect, they are distinguished in a specific respect (for example, the factor of location; not all are in the same place, otherwise it would not be a distinguishing feature and they would be the same in any case, which is why your analogy would make even less sense) because it is precisely this distinguishing feature that constitutes the difference. A would then, in that sense, no longer be A at all, even if they were absolutely identical in a certain respect. To reiterate: if one assumes the law of identity in order to reject the law of identity, one ends up in a logical contradiction and is performatively inconsistent.

No, your analogy is already false from the very beginning and is a false equivelance, because you are just speaking about what the properties establisch to make up a conclusion (atoms -> water for example), which is a category error, why? Because the very properties that make the river out to be the river are not actually identical to each other - which is why it fails on that level - and the river itself is one single river without a second one being identical to it even though it's distinct - an analogy that would actually lead you up to the conclusion you need. The effect of those composition-based water molecules is identical, yes: because it is literally the same effect and one and only one effect that results out of it, which is why there is no two things being identical even though they are distinct here; but two different thing causing one singular conclusion; which doesn't help you establish your position that law of identity is not modalontologically necessary. Also, in regards to the practical claim: it is absolutely an ontological conclusion, because it being pragmatic and only restricted to its pragmatism is a presupposition you are bullding right now without giving justification for it, which is why I can just negate it and you would have not shown priority for that particular frame shift over its own negation; it is a necessary tool, yes, but that doesn't follow in it being restricted to a pragmatic framework. You have never actually shown how that is established.

Firstly: quantum physics doesn't break law of identity, because it changes it's view on identity itself and how it is established (how you identify certain things in the given framework), not that an atom (for example) may not be identical to itself or may be identical to a different atom; that is absolutely not the case and your point is underdeveloped here, because you didn't showcase the 'violation' of law of identity that you presupposed in that particular line of argumentation. Again: you here - again - didn‘t showcase the priority over its own negation, which is why this point also fails.in regards to your time point: that is completely false, because just because that particular property changes over and over again, that doesnt mean that the intentionality-object changes or is not identical to itself, but that the property gets actualized over and over again, which doesn't necessarily follow in it bot being an identity/identity in general anymore. You didn't close the inferential gap between your premises and your conclusion her and asserted something absolutely false.

Your first argument is already false: i did not say that I can just pick out which property makes the identity, but that the properties that make/constitute that identity are not identical to each other and the effect of those properties is also one singular effect/conclusion/result, that is identical to itself and that is it. I do deny your conclusion which states that I just pick out with property makes the identity the identity, because A = A (law of identity) means, that everything is identical to itself and for something to be identical to itself in an absolute sense, the properties would have to be identical by necessify and there cannot be any distinguishing factor. Thus, your argumentation fails on that level, because you have never showcased how it is even relevant to the discussion wether or not absolute or relative identity theory is true; law of identity is not dependent on that. Law of identity itself - analytically - establishes, that something would have to be identical to itself in every single aspect to be A = A. Also: your premises don‘t follow up to the conclusion that A) it matters if relative or absolute identity is true and B) in what sense I just picked out how things are identity (based on their attributes). And to your last point in regards to pragmatism: firstly, if there is no way to establish something outside one‘s own frame, that would also be applicable to a negation and you negated it being ontological (outside pragmatic framework), which is why you are inconsistent in your own methodology, and secondly: I see no issue in viewing/proving things on a meta level - which i literally did from the beginning; proving law of identity from a meta level - and you build an epistemic barrier for yourself by claiming that, because you cannot prove anything right now in regards to law of identity on an ontological level. Thus, you still haven‘t shown how your position has priority over its own negation.

No, again: absolute identity or relative identity is irrelevant for the debate right now, because the topic is about law of identity being modal logically necessary or no. You are missing that point the whole time and you still haven‘t shown priority for your claims over their own negation. Again: you failed to establish how that water and molecule analogy debunks me or showcases anything, because you still haven‘t shown how I based off my identity claim of A = A in specific properties being given or something like that. Law of identity is regardless of my framing, because identity concepts and law of identity are two different things; again, law of identity is A=A, identity theories are: when are certain things actually the reflexivity in its being? Those are two very different things.

Your first point is already flawed, because you gave me the benefit of accepting that I showcased A = A by applying it to concepts etc., which is why I could do the same for the reality; the reality is also identical to itself and if you were to doubt that, your own negation would - again- be identical to itself in order to even exist. Also: logic is how you come to conclusions about realify and concepts, so applying logic - in this case of law of identity - to certain things is absolutely not an incoherent way to come to conclusions. You have failed to establish how your negation has priority over what I have established, and also: you did fail to showcase how your distinction of reality and 'tools' or 'concepts' even exists in regards to law of identity, because all of your analogies failed and you are still trying to follow up your conclusion with those very informations. My point was that you never showcased that at all, so your claim/distinction has never been proven. Again: properties shifting just means the identity changes - under that view - and you didn‘t showcase the correlation between the identity not being identical to itself anymore, because as soon as it changes, the A is not A anymore, but A‘. But now: A‘ is identical to A‘, not identical to A. But 'itself' would refer to his current/present self, not the self that is not really him - cause something changed -, which is why you made a terrible blunder on this point as well.