A could be B but it is not a true statement.

A=A asserts identity.

If A=the weight of my brain... and B=the weight of yours, then A and B are the same thing... not as a matter of identity, but a shared characteristic. Whether my brain and your brain are the same thing, depends on whether we think in terms of a unified or pleuralistic universe.

Some would say that since there is no distinction in the unified universe, there can be no rational reflection upon it. There is no perspective from which you can view the unified universe, because there's no distinction between you and not you so as to allow any type of viewer.

Nevertheless, I say that when we equate voltage to resistance times current, we are in fact recognizing that potential and actual are not really separate except in the context of the analysis of an event.

Why not?

Think of human names, for example. Here on this forum, it is true that Didymos = Thomas = Didy = DT.

According to Bertrand Russell, the verb to be (incl "is") has several meanings, one of which is identity. So the = is more precise than "is". If you're using the "is" of predication, then "A is B" could imply that B is a quality of A (like "the mouse (A) is small (B)".

Yeah but DT does not = Didymos Thomas.

DT "could" = Didymos Thomas but not always.

DT and Didymos Thomas reference the same thing, me. So they are the same; they are different labels for the same thing.

And sure, it is possible that DT = Didymos Thomas and it is possible for DT to refer to something else - that would be understood through context. But simply because DT might refer to something else does not make the statement DT = Didymos Thomas necessarily a false statement.

Why not? Mark Twain is Samuel L. Clemens. Jena Bush is the daughter of George W. Bush. Walter Scott is the author of Ivanhoe.