You are the one who brought poinsettias and cats into this discussion, not I.
You bring empirically based statements into the discussion and then object when others attempt to counter those statements with empirical observations. Go figure,
Given that the evidence which demonstrates the obvious falsity of your statement is so readily available
, I'll assume that your error is the result of a simple mis-reading rather than an attempt at a deliberate misrepresentation. I brought up the "poinsettia" example as a way to demonstrate
the law of non-contradiction, not to prove
it. In contrast, you brought up empirical objections
in a futile attempt to disprove
the law. That's the difference.
I believe that the "wave-particle debate" is a debate precisely because the notion that light is both wave and not-wave (and particle and not-particle) goes against the law of non-contradiction. As I mentioned before, when we find something that appears to contravene the rule, we either doubt the empirical finding or we doubt the rule. I believe that, at present, physicists are still grappling with that question.
You are putting forward here an empirical objection to the law of non-contradiction. You are your own contradiction joefromchicago.
It's not my objection, and so, at least, I cannot be accused of contradicting myself.
twyvel wrote: Quote:
If we reduce it to: X cannot be simultaneously good and bad for Y.
Are you saying that "good" and "bad" are empirical
It's not a question of the logic being flawed. The issue is simply that your Opening post;
A thing cannot simultaneously be both "A" and "not-A."
or the Law of non-contradiction, is not an absolute.
Really? How do you know?
How do you know that
That duration is an illusion is not the main point here.
Then why did you
bring it up?
The main point is, if the duration needed for X to effect Y is an unknown then we cannot say what takes place in that unknown duration, i.e. X could effect Y in more then one way.
How do you know that?
So what? If everything is an illusion, how can we know that? Indeed, if everything is an illusion, then our idea of "illusion" is also an illusion.
do not know.
How do you know that you don't know?
Unless one knows the truth they are pretending to some extend.
How can you tell the difference?
Well, the whole thing may
be a dream, in which case I may
be wrong. But then if one contends that the whole thing is
a dream, there is no possibility of being right.
How do you know that?
It's blatantly obvious to some of us that awareness cannot be observed, cannot be objectified, cannot be made an object to itself. When one goes looking for the observer they end up in an infinite regress,.... or a never ending..........
At last, twyvel
! You've finally answered the question that I have been posing all along. Apparently, the long-awaited answer to "how do you know that?" is "it's blatantly obvious to some of us."
, I'm rather disappointed. To think that I've been waiting so long for this
. The mountain labored mightily and produced a mouse.
No, I "don't get it" because I have never seen any cause to give credence to your argument. Since you deny concepts such as "subjectivity" and "awareness," there's simply no compelling reason to accept any statement that you might make regarding "subjectivity" or "awareness."
And you know that because it's "blatantly obvious," right?