Every truth must be true

But, then again, I don't really care what "necessity" happens to mean to you or to some particular individual.

kennethamy wrote:

And you are willing to accept contradiction? Can you tell me why, since all contradictions are necessarily false, and if you accept contradiction you must accept the false as well as the true. Is that what you want? In any case, whether you want it or not, you are committed to accepting the false if you accept contradiction. Just as long as you realize that. If you do not mind believing what is false, that is all right. Just realize what you are committed to.

For someone for whom what other people think is irrelevant, you seem too much interested in what I think. Anyway, I would not say I am willing to accept contradictions, which seems to you as an heresy, since contradictions are already for me first-class citizens of the world. But if this bothers you, just remember: there are many (indeed, many) fields of symbolic logic today that accept contradictions in various different forms, each one with a slightly different concept of negation (it is all about the concept of negation). You don't need to go as far as I go to see the necessity of admitting contradictions, although it seems you are not willing to even step outside your own house.

I agree. But why don't you consider what I say. Philosophers are a community of scholars, not wild men off in a jungle of their own. Philosophers are more like physicists or historians, they are not artists being inspired to paint pretty pictures. As Oliver Cromwell said in his speech to the Long Parliament to his opponents: "Consider Sirs that you may be wrong". It is not up to you to decide what the word "necessary" (or any other word means). Where would your authority to do so come from. Would it be right for me to give whatever private meaning I like to a word and expect you to accept it just on my sayso? Think about it. Who knows, you may come to think that you are entirely on the wrong track. And that would be necessary for you to get on the right track. No one receives their knowledge from God, you know. We are all of us, fallible human beings, and knowledge is a social commondity.

(contradiction) -> p, for every p. If we believe that 'contradictions' are true then all propositions are true???
Why do you think it is useful or sensible to assert that all propositions are true?

Contradictions as 'world first-class citizens' should imply that these first-class citizens actually occur in the world, But they do not.

What contradictory happening/situation can you demonstrate?

Logic abhors contradiction...Bertrand Russell.

Owen phil wrote:

(contradiction) -> p, for every p. If we believe that 'contradictions' are true then all propositions are true???
Why do you think it is useful or sensible to assert that all propositions are true?

Contradictions as 'world first-class citizens' should imply that these first-class citizens actually occur in the world, But they do not.

What contradictory happening/situation can you demonstrate?

Logic abhors contradiction...Bertrand Russell.

The very passage of time involves a contradiction inside everything that, with that passage, changes. Everything is different now from what it was yesterday, and even so everything is the same. If you want a more contemporary example, I already gave it: light. It is made both of waves and of particles, and although physicists hate that contradiction (they hate contradictions) they must live with it, or their physics would simply not word. Which is another contradiction, this time between what they believe should be their practice and what it happens, in practice, to be.

First, an example of a necessary truth: All bachelors are unmarried males. For it would be logically impossible for someone to be a bachelor, but not an unmarried male. It is not only that all bachelors are unmarried males, it is that it must be that all bachelors are unmarried males. If you just think about this for a moment, you will see that I am right.

"The very passage of time involves a contradiction inside everything that, with that passage, changes."

That things are different with the passing of time is not a contradiction at all.
a=a is true at all times.
That things are altered with the passing of time, shows that x at t1 is different and not equal to x at t2.

We can only say: x at t1 = x at t1 or x at t2 = x at t2, but it is false to say x at t1 = x at t2.

There is no contradiction between belief and actuality. Actuality wins every time.

There is no contradiction in the understanding of light, rather their understanding is incomplete.

Your psuedo-contradictions don't work.

There is no contradiction between belief and actuality. Actuality wins every time.

Owen phil wrote:

There is no contradiction between belief and actuality. Actuality wins every time.

Now could you please explain to me how actuality can win over belief if there is no contradiction between them?

kennethamy wrote:

First, an example of a necessary truth: All bachelors are unmarried males. For it would be logically impossible for someone to be a bachelor, but not an unmarried male. It is not only that all bachelors are unmarried males, it is that it must be that all bachelors are unmarried males. If you just think about this for a moment, you will see that I am right.

This kind of "contradiction" - the only one classic logic is capable of - amazes me. You just define some term, then you try to imagine something to which your definition does apply so you can, just for fun, assert it applies, and, voilà: you built yourself a contradiction. This kind of "do-it-yourself" contradiction has nothing to do with serious contradictions like the one in the very heart of light. This last contradiction is not the product of someone's imagination, but is found by means of sophisticated (and sometimes seriously expensive) objective investigation.

I am (right now and at the same time) in Florida and not in Florida. In other words, I am both in and not in Florida. That statement is self-contradictory, and because it’s self-contradictory, I know that it’s not possible (logically possible, that is) that I am both in and not in Florida.

There is no contradiction between two baseball teams, but one can win over the other. I admit, however, that I do not know what it means to say that actuality wins over belief.

There is no contradiction between two baseball teams, but one can win over the other.

Logic is one thing: poetry is a different thing.

I don't think you know what a logical contradiction is: two propositions, p and q, contradict each other if, and only if, they cannot both be true (at the same time) nor both be false (at the same time). You are using the term contradiction metaphorically. Logic is one thing: poetry is a different thing. For all I know, it may be logically impossible for light to be a wave and a particle. I really would not know. But if it is, then the contradiction in light is a logical contradiction. And, logical contradictions are as deep as they come. But, as I say, it may be that it is logically impossible for something to be both a particle and a wave. I wouldn't really know. I will leave that to those who know about such things. Whereof I do not know, I shut up. For all I know you may be a quantum physicist. If you are, then you know about such things. I stick to what I know about.

Good book you are recommending...

I try to think of light explained sometimes as a particle, sometimes better as a wave. Both theories I think are only partly right.

kennethamy wrote:

I don't think you know what a logical contradiction is: two propositions, p and q, contradict each other if, and only if, they cannot both be true (at the same time) nor both be false (at the same time). You are using the term contradiction metaphorically. Logic is one thing: poetry is a different thing. For all I know, it may be logically impossible for light to be a wave and a particle. I really would not know. But if it is, then the contradiction in light is a logical contradiction. And, logical contradictions are as deep as they come. But, as I say, it may be that it is logically impossible for something to be both a particle and a wave. I wouldn't really know. I will leave that to those who know about such things. Whereof I do not know, I shut up. For all I know you may be a quantum physicist. If you are, then you know about such things. I stick to what I know about.

I am perfectly aware of what a logical contradiction is, I just don't think they are a felony or an heresy. It is funny that you say that "logical contradictions are as deep as they come," since you deny they can be at all. Where can they get their depth from if they cannot be more than a mistake? No wonder you choose to shut up. Perhaps they are deep because any contradiction that is not simply a mistake is a metaphor, and metaphors are deep. Then, I suggest you stop considering them just metaphors and try to investigate how deep they are, otherwise your thinking will get too superficial. Regarding light, as I already mentioned, you don't need to be a quantum physicist to know what it means for light to be both a wave and a particle. Today, this is common knowledge: it is learned in schools, before university. This is a benefit of knowledge being a social construct, as you put yourself in another post. Any philosopher today should be aware of such things, don't you think? Another thing I think any philosopher should be aware of is the work of John Stuart Bell, which is considered by many the "most profound result of science" to date, despite using mathematics of second-grade level. He was also considered the first to "prove Einstein wrong." A good way of getting familiar with all this stuff without needing to be a quantum physicist is the book "Quantum Reality" by Nick Herbert. I guarantee you that you'll find it very easy to understand: it has very little math.

I know nothing about QM except for the pop sci stuff one sees around. But, I'll tell you one thing, if QM contains a contradiction (If) that ain't good. My interests are not in science, since I was not trained as a scientist. But I will tell you another thing: It does not follow from the proposition that it is necessarily true that all truths are true, and all truths are necessarily true, and that is what this thread began with. So as long as that point is settled, until we get to something else I know about, I think I'll not participate, since I really hate to talk about something I know nothing much about. It make me feel like a fraud. How we got to QM is mysterious. But I do know some logic, and I know little to nothing about QM. So I think I'll stick to logic and philosophy, if you don't mind. And if you know a lot about QM you can talk about that. Although I really don't see how QM is about philosophy.