Non-Contradiction

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,

Quote:

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.

You wrote:

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.

Quote:

It's not my objection, and so, at least, I cannot be accused of contradicting myself.

Are you saying that "good" and "bad" are empirical concepts?

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.

Quote:

Really? How do you know?

Quote:

How do you know that?

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.

Quote:

So what?

Quote:

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.

How do you know that you don't know?

Unless one knows the truth they are pretending to some extend.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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..........

Quote:

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."

Really, twyvel, 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."

Quote:

And you know that because it's "blatantly obvious," right?

Joe and Relative,

The point at issue is that Kosco's demolition of EM appears to be logically equivalent to rejection of NC, based on simple truth table models. Hence by his own criteria Joe's argument against Kosco fails.

It's not a misrepresentation. I said you brought empirically based statements into this discussion, and that is what you did and just admitted to.

If a "demonstration' of the law of non-contradiction is not an (attempted) proof then it doesn't demonstrate the law of non-contradiction.

You presented it as an empirical example that might be counter to the Law of non-contradiction which is inconsistent with some other of your statements, such as:

Twyvel, if all you want to do is talk about cats, then go ahead. If you want to talk about the validity of non-contradiction, however, your empirical objections are inconsequential.

So it means if that's the case, the law of non-contradiction is vulnerable to be contradicted.

If everything is an illusion that doesn't mean that there isn't anything in the illusion that points to the truth, i.e. that it is an illusion.

Quote:

How do you know that you don't know?

Is that like asking an agnostic, If you know you don't know then you are not agnostic about your agnosticism?

I don't know, but if one does not know what is true one acts according to appearances, and perhaps remaining suspicious as to its falsity. (there would be no choice).

Quote:

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.

You can be right in your guess that it is a dream, can you not?

I think it is impossible to know this existence is non-illusory, because it is. But in as much as most don't know whether a physical, material world exists, to the extent that they take it to exist they are holding a belief.

A mouse is a mountain to a dust mite,

And I've said it is obvious to some many times.

Quote:

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."

Your involvement in these questions appear to contradict the above, unless you're just trolling? And I don't deny concepts as pertaining to what I think is an illusion.

Nice to see that a rejection of dualism doesn't necessarily entail a rejection of disingenuousness.

You presented it as an empirical example that might be counter to the Law of non-contradiction which is inconsistent with some other of your statements, such as:

Twyvel, if all you want to do is talk about cats, then go ahead. If you want to talk about the validity of non-contradiction, however, your empirical objections are inconsequential.

Quote:

I presented it as an empirical paradox that, at present, has not been authoritatively resolved. As such, it does not disprove the law of non-contradiction, since it remains undetermined.

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.

Perhaps, but never with such forthrightness. Really, twyvel, I must applaud your new-found willingness to reveal the underpinnings of your epistemology. At the same time, though, I find that I am disappointed in learning that there is no "there" there. Truly, I thought you'd turn out to be much more intellectually challenging.

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."


Your involvement in these questions appear to contradict the above, unless you're just trolling? And I don't deny concepts as pertaining to what I think is an illusion.

Quote:

If you interpret my responses to you as "trolling," then I suppose we have nothing more to discuss. If you need to resort to this kind of desperate, unfounded attack to cover your own intellectual shortcomings, then any further attempt at intelligent discussion would be futile.

I understand your argument but my counter argument is that you bring into "the game" extrinsic (cultural)principles of applicability. Bivalent logic, like all mathematical models, stands or falls by virtue of its relationship to what is externally considered to be the "nature of reality". Kosco's rejection of bivalent logic starts from the the Buddhist-type principle of the illusion of fixed set boundaries. (Contrary to "your red apple set". NB in the Middle Ages there were "four colours of the rainbow" to mirror the "Four Gospels" ) This is no different to say Einstein rejecting Euclidian geometry on the basis on the idea that "space is curved".

On straight truth table grounds, Kosco's attack on EM and its equivalence to non NC is valid. Any mechanical computer would concur. What the result "means" is the subject of this negotiation.

BTW Multivalent logic does not "rule out" bivalent logic (as your begging the question remarks imply) since the truth values 1 and 0 are ascribed as limits to the dimension. Compare Einstein's system which delimited Newtonian mechanics in range of applicability.

Joe,

I disagree with your statement:

<<Einstein rejected euclidean geometry because it fails at the level of general relativity. But Einstein didn't assume the validity of general relativity before rejecting Euclidean geometry>>

perhaps you can give a reference ?

Of course Kosco rejects bivalence on philosophical grounds. So what ? He points out that what we call an "apple" or "a pear" are subject to agreement between observers.

It may be that bivalent rhetoric, like those "frictionless" spheres in high school physics, has very little applicability to "the real world" despite its clinical efficiency.

Joe,

I concede the point on Kosko (1995). He didn't talk about consensus...only that "fact" and "logic" dont meet. (p83 para3). Later Kosko references (1999) involve the utility of Fuzzy Logic in reaching consensus in negotiation.

One point not taken up in this thread is Kosko's point that bivalence leads to paradoxes and therefore its "coherence" is internally limited. I don't propose to comment further on this but I thought that you might.

So the answer is yes.

A thing cannot simultaneously be both "A" and "not-A."

Discuss.