The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:05 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:59 pm
You need to work on your comebacks. Throwing the same insult back at someone is just not a clever way to respond, in and of itself...In fact, it's probably the least clever way to respond to someone. If you're going to go that route, you should at least figure out a less transparent way to phrase it, and try to reveal a juicy irony.

If you had said something like, "Considering you never have an argument, at least I have an intellect," that would have been a more acceptable reply. Not the best material I could have come up with, but I'd rather not give my best roasts to someone who would probably ruin them by trying to fit in his pre-established madness about the 'regressive symphonic concurrency of universal existentialism'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:45 pm
What redemption...acceptance by a wannabe...like you?

Provide an argument like Arising, or get off...
You see, that is something a kid on a playground would say. I literally read that bit in my nephews voice.
At least you didn't end your post with, '...or else..'
Blah, blah, blah:


Here is something that should challenge your mind and increase your IQ...it is even Pink so when you are giving head to Erk you will feel more like the woman...

http://www.coloring-book.info/coloring/

Provide an argument or this continues as is.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:24 pm

That was a pretty quick response, I'm assuming you have the site on a bookmark to be able to pull from it so quickly and incessantly. Not that there's any shame in that, I mean, where else is a man expected to find a coloring site that features both thomas the train, and captain underpants?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:05 pm
it is even Pink so when you are giving head to Erk you will feel more like the woman...
Definitely reaching into the middle-school/high-school era of insults, now. Making some progression, here.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:42 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:24 pm
That was a pretty quick response, I'm assuming you have the site on a bookmark to be able to pull from it so quickly and incessantly. Not that there's any shame in that, I mean, where else is a man expected to find a coloring site that features both thomas the train, and captain underpants?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:05 pm
it is even Pink so when you are giving head to Erk you will feel more like the woman...
Definitely reaching into the middle-school/high-school era of insults, now. Making some progression, here.
Playing the role of a commentor in an attempt to rise above it all and pretend to be the on moral and intellectual high ground...how original... Quick? No, but considering how slow your responses are any percieve thought or insult would appear quick to you.

You have no choice but to play the "commentor role" now considering insults are not your thing...."sister". No wonder the tension...trying to figure out your gender...that must be difficult .

But last time I checked:

"And yes, by the way, i DO have a Eodnhoj7 tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It’s for the ladies’ eyes only- but even then they have to demonstrate that they’re within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand."

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22999&start=60

So is it for "erk"? Well...regardless.

You appeared to have a little middle school crush...use can use the above writing for viagra when you and erk do your thing....

Provide an argument.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:58 pm

Why do you tell me I'm gay and to use viagra, when you have a hard time figuring out my gender? You also imply that erk is actually a lady, now. Even within a joke, you shouldn't contradict yourself like that. I've warned you of this before. This is exactly the issue that people have with comedians like 'Rob Schneider' and 'Chris Kattan'. You're going in for a cheap laugh, with a joke that doesn't actually make sense.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:42 pm
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:24 pm
That was a pretty quick response, I'm assuming you have the site on a bookmark to be able to pull from it so quickly and incessantly. Not that there's any shame in that, I mean, where else is a man expected to find a coloring site that features both thomas the train, and captain underpants?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:05 pm
it is even Pink so when you are giving head to Erk you will feel more like the woman...
Definitely reaching into the middle-school/high-school era of insults, now. Making some progression, here.
Playing the role of a commentor in an attempt to rise above it all and pretend to be the on moral and intellectual high ground...how original... Quick? No, but considering how slow your responses are any percieve thought or insult would appear quick to you.
It wasn't an attempt to seem like I'm in a higher intellectual thinking space, to land an insult about how you suck at making insults, when the discussion was about exactly that.

If I were playing the role of a commentator in an attempt to 'appear' on an intellectual high ground, I would probably make a response acting like I was hyper-actively aware that's actually what the person I'm responding to, is doing. I mean, even if it wasn't true, it would be a decent way of diverting the discussion away long enough for me to avoid thinking of something else to say that the other person could potentially criticize, once again. Oh, yes, this would definitely impress the other kids on my playground.
"And yes, by the way, i DO have a Eodnhoj7 tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It’s for the ladies’ eyes only- but even then they have to demonstrate that they’re within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand
Yeah, not the first time that dead rick and morty meme went over someone's head, on here.

Unfortunately, what it means is that you don't watch rick and morty, so clearly you do not have a high IQ.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11267
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:49 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:It may not have intended being premised in space and time, however it observes all localized phenemenon as finite and hence is dependent upon time. …
The tautologies and contradictions are timeless.
Considering these laws were premised upon Aristotle, a physicist, there finite nature should have been observed a long time ago. ...
He wasn't a physicist and these laws are timeless.
The problem of logic, premised in empirical truth, is that it does not follow the laws of empirical reality but attempts to transcend certain empirical premises (specifically time) by providing constants (the three laws) which do not necessarily mirror empirical reality in its true form. …
There is no problem in Logic, that it has been found the contingent propositions are best proved true or false through empirical methods is just because it was found that logical ones were wrong with respect to the world.
… The symbols "→" observe "tending towards" as direction. Under the law of identity "[→] = [→]" should provide "→" as axiomatic, but according to its own laws it does not provide the necessary prerequisite for a universal axiom in the respect it is not understood by everyone.
No they really don't, you could just as well use "£" if you like, I think you find the arrow confusing.
All axioms exist through time as directive qualities, while as constants they observe this direction towards eachother as a boundary of connection where the multiple axioms exist as extensions of eachother. …
No idea what you are saying here.

Some examples:

1) "A therefore B" observes A being directed toward B with A as cause and B being effect.
A → B …
No, you can if you like infer causality but it's not necessary and you'd have to prove it empirically but all "P->Q" says is that if you have a P you will also have a Q and this can be true or false.

2) "A because of B" observes point 1 reversed.
B → A or A ← B

3) "A and B" observes A, as one localized phenomen which exists through linear direction, and B, following the same format as A, both being directed towards eachother as "A and B" which is further directed to C as "A and B therefore C". "And" observe A and B being directed toward eachother with this direction acting as a connection.

(A ⇄ B) → C


4) "A or B" observes A, as one localized phenomen which exists through linear direction, and B, following the same format as A, both being directed away from eachother as "A or B" exists. "Or" exists as a seperator which extends from a neutral median.
(A ← → B) → ((ФA, ФB) = C)

(ФA, ФB) = (Potential A or Potential B)

In these respects symbols such as, ˄ ˅ ∴ ∵, can be observed as:

(∴) = (→)
(∵) = (←)
(˄) = (⇄)
(˅) = (← →)

With "=" observing a negative non-directional limit of connection or seperation.



In these respects directionality acts as neutral variable so the statements of A,B,C can be observed as:

(A(x)B)(y)C
Just meaningless to me. The best I get is that you are trying to create some sort of semiotics for Logic and I have no idea why? As Logic already has its own syntax and sematics that work just fine.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11267
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:55 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Godel's incompleteness theorem observes all logical/mathematical structure must be self-referential in one degree or another if they are to be rational.
Does it? I thought it just said that any formal logic that has basic arithmetic within it will have 'propositions' that cannot be proved by the logic. This does not apply to Propositional Logic.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:35 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:58 pm
Why do you tell me I'm gay and to use viagra, when you have a hard time figuring out my gender? You also imply that erk is actually a lady, now. Even within a joke, you shouldn't contradict yourself like that. I've warned you of this before. This is exactly the issue that people have with comedians like 'Rob Schneider' and 'Chris Kattan'. You're going in for a cheap laugh, with a joke that doesn't actually make sense.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:42 pm
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:24 pm
That was a pretty quick response, I'm assuming you have the site on a bookmark to be able to pull from it so quickly and incessantly. Not that there's any shame in that, I mean, where else is a man expected to find a coloring site that features both thomas the train, and captain underpants?

Definitely reaching into the middle-school/high-school era of insults, now. Making some progression, here.
Playing the role of a commentor in an attempt to rise above it all and pretend to be the on moral and intellectual high ground...how original... Quick? No, but considering how slow your responses are any percieve thought or insult would appear quick to you.
It wasn't an attempt to seem like I'm in a higher intellectual thinking space, to land an insult about how you suck at making insults, when the discussion was about exactly that.

If I were playing the role of a commentator in an attempt to 'appear' on an intellectual high ground, I would probably make a response acting like I was hyper-actively aware that's actually what the person I'm responding to, is doing. I mean, even if it wasn't true, it would be a decent way of diverting the discussion away long enough for me to avoid thinking of something else to say that the other person could potentially criticize, once again. Oh, yes, this would definitely impress the other kids on my playground.
"And yes, by the way, i DO have a Eodnhoj7 tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It’s for the ladies’ eyes only- but even then they have to demonstrate that they’re within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand
Yeah, not the first time that dead rick and morty meme went over someone's head, on here.

Unfortunately, what it means is that you don't watch rick and morty, so clearly you do not have a high IQ.
Word salad.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:38 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:49 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:It may not have intended being premised in space and time, however it observes all localized phenemenon as finite and hence is dependent upon time. …
The tautologies and contradictions are timeless.

As you provide not argument, provide quote from source.
Considering these laws were premised upon Aristotle, a physicist, there finite nature should have been observed a long time ago. ...
He wasn't a physicist and these laws are timeless.


"These three laws are thought to have originated with Aristotle, who believed that the laws are necessary conditions for rational thinking to occur. The three laws are the law of identity, law of non-contradiction, and law of the excluded middle."

https://www2.bing.com/search?q=the+thre ... 5D9BA40D6E

"Aristotle (Greek) (384 BC - 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on many different subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology and zoology."

https://www2.bing.com/search?q=aristotl ... 7DB1D3A37E

The problem of logic, premised in empirical truth, is that it does not follow the laws of empirical reality but attempts to transcend certain empirical premises (specifically time) by providing constants (the three laws) which do not necessarily mirror empirical reality in its true form. …
There is no problem in Logic, that it has been found the contingent propositions are best proved true or false through empirical methods is just because it was found that logical ones were wrong with respect to the world.

But as you said above, the three laws are "timeless" in the respect they do not need empirical reality to justify them. If they need empirical reality to justify them then they are based in time and hence have certain finite attributes which they do not discuss.

You say there is no problem in logic, however considering logic requires an a premise of empiricism to justify its statements, because its truth/false statements cannot be justified on there own terms through strict logic alone...then there is a problem with logic.


… The symbols "→" observe "tending towards" as direction. Under the law of identity "[→] = [→]" should provide "→" as axiomatic, but according to its own laws it does not provide the necessary prerequisite for a universal axiom in the respect it is not understood by everyone.
No they really don't, you could just as well use "£" if you like, I think you find the arrow confusing.

I think you find all of logic/math confusing considering the symbols fall under the fallacy of equivocation where "+" can be a variety of things relative to the frameworks they represents. One can just look at the list below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... al_symbols

and see this fallacy.... I am beginning to question if you know what you are talking about.



"If...then" necessetitates a linear direction where one point, in this case "x", observes the beginning point of measurement and under "if", and "then" observes the predicate "y", as "if x then y" which observes a completely linear movement of "x → y"....where "tending" observes "To move or extend in a certain direction" with this direction being predicated in the finite temporal nature of an "if then" statement as a relation of parts.

"If the cat sat, then there is some place for the cat to sit" observes a strictly directional statement where the actions of the cat acts as the premise origin or measurement to determine whether or not a seperate finite relation exists (place). In simpler terms the statement observes the movement of the cat determining whether or not there is another locality which exists. This locality is dependent, through the predicate, on the premise.

However if the statement is reversed: "If there is some place for the cat to sit" it does not imply necessarily the "cat sat". In these respects viewing the starting axiom as a locality in time space leads to two different predicates because of the direction of the statement. I may observe 1→2 with "→" observing a continual fractal starting with 1.1 → 1.2.... with this in turn existing as a continual fractal 1.11→1.12... however if I reverse the statement 2→1 the nature of "→" representing a direction of a continual fractal is different 1.9→1.8... and 1.99→1.98...

So the direction of the statement, inevitably determines the predicate which follows, hence this directive quality not just determines the nature of the the truth but fundamentally observes a set of finite relations in themselves that have an inherent element of time.



All axioms exist through time as directive qualities, while as constants they observe this direction towards eachother as a boundary of connection where the multiple axioms exist as extensions of eachother. …
No idea what you are saying here.


1) An axiom is finite in the respect it exists in time through time and because of this is directed toward other axioms because of its finite characteristics. "The cat sat on the mat", as an observation of something empirical occuring in time observes these axioms existing relative to other axioms considering "The", "cat", "sat", "on", "the", "mat" are all axioms in themselves that require further axioms to justify them.

Because axioms are determined through strictly linear 1 directional statements, where movement as progress occurs, which defines the statement itself, they have an inherent element of finiteness in them.

2) In a seperate respect all finite realities are merely an approximation of a unified infinite timeless reality in the respect all finite realities exist as a relation of parts that must relation to further parts in order to exist. An axiom, through time, exists if and only if it continues to be defined by further axioms. However from a perspective of a unified infinite constant, all percievable finiteness is an extension of constant as an approximation of this unity through multiplicity. In these respects all axioms, as you say, are "timeless".

3) The axiom maintains a dual nature of being both finite and infinite at the same time in different respects.






Some examples:

1) "A therefore B" observes A being directed toward B with A as cause and B being effect.
A → B …
No, you can if you like infer causality but it's not necessary and you'd have to prove it empirically but all "P->Q" says is that if you have a P you will also have a Q and this can be true or false.
If it is proved empirically then it is not subject to logic but empirical means only and the three laws contradict themselves under the finite nature of empirical phenomenon as they do not take into account time. In a seperate respect if the three laws are timeless but grounded in an empirical nature then they contradict themselves as they are not justified on there own terms.

Causality is an observation of relation in time between actual localities leading to potential localities which in turn are actual. In these respects the actual realities are maintain as ever present as that which gives structure, considering potential localities as an absence of localization do not have structure in and of themselves. Causality is an observation of structure in these respects and in effect is timeless as "the person walking to the park and ducking to avoid a falling branch" observes these as all actualized in themselves where the falling branch caused the ducking with the ducking causing the walking and the walking causing the person to exist in the park as all these actions are interconnected in the respect they are actualized. Now the "person walking through the park" may have the potential locality of "ducking to a avoid a falling branch"...however this potentiality locality is unactualized and the "person walking through the park" is what is actual. In these respects the park cause the person to walk as they are extensions of eachother as an actual locality.

Causality is an observation of structure, and while may exist through time, is not limit to it as time is an approximation of one locality through multiple localities which extend through eachother under the common bond of all being causal (or actual).

"A therefore B" does not have to be proven empirically as "A and B" are variable which contain an infinite number of localities where one is directed towards another. The variables in these respects are constants observation of structure, where what the variables represent are subject to infinite change. "A therefore B" is strictly a statement of direction which exists through time but is not limit to it.




2) "A because of B" observes point 1 reversed.
B → A or A ← B

3) "A and B" observes A, as one localized phenomen which exists through linear direction, and B, following the same format as A, both being directed towards eachother as "A and B" which is further directed to C as "A and B therefore C". "And" observe A and B being directed toward eachother with this direction acting as a connection.

(A ⇄ B) → C


4) "A or B" observes A, as one localized phenomen which exists through linear direction, and B, following the same format as A, both being directed away from eachother as "A or B" exists. "Or" exists as a seperator which extends from a neutral median.
(A ← → B) → ((ФA, ФB) = C)

(ФA, ФB) = (Potential A or Potential B)

In these respects symbols such as, ˄ ˅ ∴ ∵, can be observed as:

(∴) = (→)
(∵) = (←)
(˄) = (⇄)
(˅) = (← →)

With "=" observing a negative non-directional limit of connection or seperation.



In these respects directionality acts as neutral variable so the statements of A,B,C can be observed as:

(A(x)B)(y)C
Just meaningless to me. The best I get is that you are trying to create some sort of semiotics for Logic and I have no idea why? As Logic already has it's own syntax and sematics that work just fine.
"Meaningless to me" is a fallacy of authority as "me" (you) does not necessitate whether a statement is truth or not. I am arguing that all phenomena, including logic itself, exist through limit and no-limit and have inherent directional qualities because of it. Space is the foundation for quantity and quality.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:44 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:Godel's incompleteness theorem observes all logical/mathematical structure must be self-referential in one degree or another if they are to be rational.
Does it? I thought it just said that any formal logic that has basic arithmetic within it will have 'propositions' that cannot be proved by the logic. This does not apply to Propositional Logic.


"Propositional logic is a formal language that treats propositions as atomic units. A typical propositional logic word problem is as follows: A, B, C, D are quarreling quadruplets." (unless you differ?)

https://www2.bing.com/search?q=problems ... 02DC0EB570

"The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers. For any such formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... s_theorems

"The natural number however is the idea of the actual collection of units, /////, which we could represent by strokes, or dots, or a line divided into equal parts. For there is no "5" apart from five units, even though we do not say the word units."

https://www2.bing.com/search?q=natural+ ... C95ED0D86A

Propositional Logic and Godel's Incompleteness theorem are unified under the common bond of "unit" and hence share the same problems.



User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11267
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:50 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:"Meaningless to me" is a fallacy of authority as "me" (you) does not necessitate whether a statement is truth or not. …
No it's not a fallacy of authority as I'm not saying whether it's true or false, just that what you say makes no sense to me in the sense that it appears meaningless, as does much of what you write. Can you explain what you are trying to achieve with your thoughts?
I am arguing that all phenomena, including logic itself, exist through limit and no-limit and have inherent directional qualities because of it. Space is the foundation for quantity and quality.
Limit and no-limit of what? And why would it imply a direction?

The best I get from you is that you are trying to apply what you've understood of Peirce's ideas and are trying to create a semiotic of some kind but I'm surprised you are applying it to Logic as Peirce himself thought Logic fine.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:34 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:"Meaningless to me" is a fallacy of authority as "me" (you) does not necessitate whether a statement is truth or not. …
No it's not a fallacy of authority as I'm not saying whether it's true or false, just that what you say makes no sense to me in the sense that it appears meaningless, as does much of what you write. Can you explain what you are trying to achieve with your thoughts?

You claim meaning is relevant to you as an authority, and that the nature of "I do know" or "I do not know" does not mean a statement is either right or wrong but rather means "I do know" or "I do not know".

I am arguing that all phenomena, including logic itself, exist through limit and no-limit and have inherent directional qualities because of it. Space is the foundation for quantity and quality.
Limit and no-limit of what? And why would it imply a direction?

The best I get from you is that you are trying to apply what you've understood of Peirce's ideas and are trying to create a semiotic of some kind but I'm surprised you are applying it to Logic as Peirce himself thought Logic fine.
Triadic Logic, is not limited to Pierce but briefly observe in Hegel/Fichte through Thesis/Anti-thesis/Synthesis and with the pythagorean concept of "three" as stable change.

All limits founded in linear form and function in logic observes an inherently expansive or contractive nature, in which the statement must continually progress or regress in direction if the statement is to maintain itself as constant and true.

The "cat is on the mat" is a partial statement of truth in the respect it is deficient and must continually expand in definition in order to increase its definitive capacity as an axiomatic truth. "The cat is on the mat in John's house" contains a higher degree of truth and clarity and "The cat is on the mat in John's house during wednesday's" is a further increase in defintion. The statement as a relation of parts must continually relate to further parts to contain a higher degree of truth as "The cat is on the mat" is true under multiple realities without this increase in definition ("The cat is on the mat at John's house or Jane's house during wednesday's or thursday's".

The continual directive nature of the statement expanding observes the linear foundation of the statement exists in 1 continual direction.


User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:30 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:34 pm
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:"Meaningless to me" is a fallacy of authority as "me" (you) does not necessitate whether a statement is truth or not. (I am arguing that all phenomena, including logic itself, exist through limit and no-limit and have inherent directional qualities because of it. Space is the foundation for quantity and quality)
No it's not a fallacy of authority as I'm not saying whether it's true or false, just that what you say makes no sense to me in the sense that it appears meaningless, as does much of what you write. Can you explain what you are trying to achieve with your thoughts?
You claim meaning is relevant to you as an authority, and that the nature of "I do know" or "I do not know" does not mean a statement is either right or wrong but rather means "I do know" or "I do not know".
That is such an unbelievably retarded stretch of reasoning, I'm surprised you didn't have a brain aneurysm, just trying to say it.

Someone telling you, "I don't know what you just said," or "(This is) just meaningless to me," is not fallacious, because it's not even a fucking argument; It is literally a statement that you don't understand what's being said, that you don't even understand the argument; Fallacies only apply to arguments. They wouldn't apply to me derogating you either, because that also wasn't an argument.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1978
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:53 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:30 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:34 pm
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:50 am
No it's not a fallacy of authority as I'm not saying whether it's true or false, just that what you say makes no sense to me in the sense that it appears meaningless, as does much of what you write. Can you explain what you are trying to achieve with your thoughts?
You claim meaning is relevant to you as an authority, and that the nature of "I do know" or "I do not know" does not mean a statement is either right or wrong but rather means "I do know" or "I do not know".
That is such an unbelievably retarded stretch of reasoning, I'm surprised you didn't have a brain aneurysm, just trying to say it.

Someone telling you, "I don't know what you just said," or "(This is) just meaningless to me," is not fallacious, because it's not even a fucking argument; It is literally a statement that you don't understand what's being said, that you don't even understand the argument; Fallacies only apply to arguments. They wouldn't apply to me derogating you either, because that also wasn't an argument.
Actually the argument is this, if you reread it:

Claiming unknowing does not equate to the argument being either right or wrong, as one does not know; hence to argue against it would equivobly be saying "You are wrong because I don't understand you".

It's a reverse version of the ad-hominum where the individual doing the "prosecution" is negating his/her own position.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:46 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:53 pm
Claiming unknowing does not equate to the argument being either right or wrong, as one does not know; hence to argue against it would equivobly be saying "You are wrong because I don't understand you".
"You are wrong because I do not understand you" =/= "I do not understand you." You do understand this crucial difference? One of those things is an attempt to make an argument, while the latter is self-evidently not a fucking argument; He literally just straight out implied that it wasn't when he said "I'm not saying whether it's true or false." It was just a declaration that he did not understand your argument, because you speak in an alien language that very few people on this site even think they understand.
It's a reverse version of the ad-hominum where the individual doing the "prosecution" is negating his/her own position.
A 'reverse ad-hominen' would be something like boasting someone's position based on praise rather than an insult. What the hell are you even talking about, now?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11267
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Arising_uk » Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Actually the argument is this, if you reread it:

Claiming unknowing does not equate to the argument being either right or wrong, as one does not know; hence to argue against it would equivobly be saying "You are wrong because I don't understand you".

It's a reverse version of the ad-hominum where the individual doing the "prosecution" is negating his/her own position.
Not really, my point was that your symbols make no sense to me as you haven't formally explained them in any way that I can make sense or use of them.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests