## The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Arising_uk
Posts: 11693
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote:

"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?)
Only in that it's 'atomic propositions' not 'units'.
"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
Does not apply to PL.
"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
No idea how this applies to PL?
Propositional Logic and Godel's Incompleteness theorem are unified under the common bond of "unit" and hence share the same problems.
Not really as it's 'atomic propostions' and all this means is that the propostion has to be one that can be true or false.

I think your metaphysic causes you to try and chisel everything into it.

Arising_uk
Posts: 11693
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote: 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. ...
But you're not presenting a triadic logic? At best you appear to be trying to create a semiotic for Logic?

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. ...
But the contingent propositions of logic don't have to be constant and true(whatever that means?) they just have to be true or false at the time.
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. ...
What do you mean by an 'axiomatic truth'? As all I think it means is that it has to be self-evidently true which would apply to the tautologies and contradictions. If you are applying it to contingent propositions it, in my opinion, means it would have to be empirically true, i.e. there is actually a cat sitting on a mat.
"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. ...
It might well be more specific but it's got nothing to do with a 'higher degree' of truth, it's just true in the same way 'The cat is on the mat' is.
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". ...
What 'multiple realities'? The statements are just true or false under one reality.
The continual directive nature of the statement expanding observes the linear foundation of the statement exists in 1 continual direction.
Except of course when there is no cat sitting on a mat.

What is it you are actually trying to do or achieve with these thoughts?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
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?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Arising_uk wrote:
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.
That is what the English translations are for...ignore the equation and read the English.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Arising_uk wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:22 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:

"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?)
Only in that it's 'atomic propositions' not 'units'.

An atomic proposition is a unit in the respect the proposition, as a part, exists relative to other propositions as units.
"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
Does not apply to PL.

It applies to all systems and axioms as the nature of quantity and quality are directly intertwined.
"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
No idea how this applies to PL?

Both mathematical quantity and logical quality exist through units as parts.

Propositional Logic and Godel's Incompleteness theorem are unified under the common bond of "unit" and hence share the same problems.
Not really as it's 'atomic propostions' and all this means is that the propostion has to be one that can be true or false.

I think your metaphysic causes you to try and chisel everything into it.

It is not "my metaphysics" but rather an observation of base directed within everything.

A proposition can only be determined as true or false based on the context it is in, with this context existing if it continually expands as the proposition itself is subject to definition with the definition existing if and only if it continues to expand further. In these respects all propositions maintain true/false and neutral values at the same time in different respects.

Arising_uk
Posts: 11693
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote:That is what the English translations are for...ignore the equation and read the English.
Except your English is nearly incomprehensible too.

Arising_uk
Posts: 11693
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote: An atomic proposition is a unit in the respect the proposition, as a part, exists relative to other propositions as units.
No they don't, an atomic proposition is a statement that stands-alone as being true or false.
It applies to all systems and axioms as the nature of quantity and quality are directly intertwined.
No it doesn't, you clearly don't understand what Godel's theorem is saying and which logics it applies to. PL is sound and complete.
Both mathematical quantity and logical quality exist through units as parts.
No idea what this means with respect to PL.
It is not "my metaphysics" but rather an observation of base directed within everything.
No idea what this is supposed to mean?
A proposition can only be determined as true or false based on the context it is in, with this context existing if it continually expands as the proposition itself is subject to definition with the definition existing if and only if it continues to expand further. In these respects all propositions maintain true/false and neutral values at the same time in different respects.
You just don't understand PL and appear to confuse contingent statements with the tautologies and contradictions.

Arising_uk
Posts: 11693
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Word salad...some likes thier fiber....
Actually what he said was in very clear English.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Arising_uk wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:43 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: 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. ...
But you're not presenting a triadic logic? At best you appear to be trying to create a semiotic for Logic?

Logic extends from limit as a form of limit itself with all limit being the foundation of structure. You are trying to seperate logic from certain facets of reality when in reality I am stating they are one and the same.

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. ...
But the contingent propositions of logic don't have to be constant and true(whatever that means?) they just have to be true or false at the time.

But that "time" is merely a statement of relation where one time exists relative to another time. The proposition "x" may be true for "y" time, but "y" is not stated in the proposition in one respect while in a seperate respect the proposition changes value when presented with "z".
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. ...
What do you mean by an 'axiomatic truth'? As all I think it means is that it has to be self-evidently true which would apply to the tautologies and contradictions. If you are applying it to contingent propositions it, in my opinion, means it would have to be empirically true, i.e. there is actually a cat sitting on a mat.

An "axiomatic-truth"...self-evident truth...a phenomena which exists as self-evident through self-evidence.

Contradictions are axiomatic in both the respect they are contradictory (deficient in structure) and composed of parts that are not contradictory.

The problem of empirical truths is that they are subject to time, which means at one time they are true and eventually they are not. The truth value, through the passing of time, in turn becomes relegates to a facet of "memory" and inherently takes on an entirely different abstract nature from which the empirical cannot be seperated.

"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. ...
It might well be more specific but it's got nothing to do with a 'higher degree' of truth, it's just true in the same way 'The cat is on the mat' is.

A higher degree of truth is truth which is relativistically moving towards a greater degree of unity as "the cat sat on the mat" has only so many parts which exist through a relation with further parts. With the increase in particle relations comes an increase in observing a "whole" in the respect their is less potentiality available and more actualization.
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". ...
What 'multiple realities'? The statements are just true or false under one reality.

Their may be "one reality" but this "oneness" is approximated through an inherent multiplicity with the increase in relations observing a movement towards greater unity. So "while the cat sat on the mat" may be "one" statement this one statement may exist through multiple realities of either "John's" or "Jane's" house. With the observation of "the cat sat on the mat at Janes" comes a cessation of the possibility of it sitting at John's and a potential statement (of it sitting at John's) is self-negated in the face of it "sitting at Janes". Actuality is unity with potentiality observing an inherent multiplicity as an absence of structure.

The continual directive nature of the statement expanding observes the linear foundation of the statement exists in 1 continual direction.
Except of course when there is no cat sitting on a mat.

What is it you are actually trying to do or achieve with these thoughts?

The same question applies to you as well...What are you trying to achieve?

The negation of the cat sitting on the mat, still requires an inherently expanding form of negation as this negation must maintain itself as constant if the proposition is to maintain its truth value.

The nature of logic, in the respects, has inherently moving properties of expansion and contraction that exists under a form of directive movement which acts as the foundation of the statement itself. The linear nature of the proposition observes that the nature of true values stem inherently from limits that exist both outside and through logic and we are left with logic (and its defining properties) as being extensions of limits existing through limits.

Logic is movement with this continual movement acting as the limit through direction which enables logic to exist.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:24 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:That is what the English translations are for...ignore the equation and read the English.
Except your English is nearly incomprehensible too.
That is a relative statement...see the above arguments. Comprehensibility is subjective and hence does not necessarily argue for or against a truth value as this subjective nature contains an element of randomness in it.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:31 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: An atomic proposition is a unit in the respect the proposition, as a part, exists relative to other propositions as units.
No they don't, an atomic proposition is a statement that stands-alone as being true or false.

And this requires further atomic propositions ad-fininitum leaving the statement unclear except in the respect the proposition exists as it exists.
It applies to all systems and axioms as the nature of quantity and quality are directly intertwined.
No it doesn't, you clearly don't understand what Godel's theorem is saying and which logics it applies to. PL is sound and complete.

And where is propositional's argument for soundness and completion?
Both mathematical quantity and logical quality exist through units as parts.
No idea what this means with respect to PL.

The proposition "The cat sat on the mat" is composed of the parts "the", "cat", "sat", "on", "the", "mat" which are composed of further definitions while "the cat sat on the mat" acts as a further part of "the cat sat on the mat [during x time]". In these respects the proposition is both a part in itself and is composed of parts.

Propositional logic is highly relativistic and subject to increasing change.

It is not "my metaphysics" but rather an observation of base directed within everything.
No idea what this is supposed to mean?

The 13 prime directives are universal laws, it exists through metaphysics as metaphysics but is no limited to them.

A proposition can only be determined as true or false based on the context it is in, with this context existing if it continually expands as the proposition itself is subject to definition with the definition existing if and only if it continues to expand further. In these respects all propositions maintain true/false and neutral values at the same time in different respects.
You just don't understand PL and appear to confuse contingent statements with the tautologies and contradictions.

No, I understand it perfectly well...reciting memorized dogma does not count as presenting an argument.

However you claim I am wrong...good...provided a list of why I am wrong and I will address each point directly.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:32 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Word salad...some likes thier fiber....
Actually what he said was in very clear English.
He claims he does not understand me, so whatever argument he presents against what he does not understand...is clearly not-understandable. He is just frustrated as usual.

Arising_uk
Posts: 11693
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Logic extends from limit as a form of limit itself with all limit being the foundation of structure. ...
You know how you keep accusing others of word salad?

Logic, in my personal opinion, extends from there being states of affairs or things. No states of affairs or things, no Logic.
You are trying to seperate logic from certain facets of reality when in reality I am stating they are one and the same.
Which 'facets of reality' are you talking about as as far as I can understand you are using a conceptual metaphysic that you then squeeze everything into. The 'facets of reality' I use are that there are states of affairs or things and that is why there is Logic.
But that "time" is merely a statement of relation where one time exists relative to another time. The proposition "x" may be true for "y" time, but "y" is not stated in the proposition in one respect while in a seperate respect the proposition changes value when presented with "z".
Again you ignore the tautologies and contradictions as being necessarily true and seem only concerned with the contingent propositions, if things or states of affairs change then the proposition then just becomes true or false respectively.
An "axiomatic-truth"...self-evident truth...a phenomena which exists as self-evident through self-evidence.

Contradictions are axiomatic in both the respect they are contradictory (deficient in structure) and composed of parts that are not contradictory. ...
How are they 'deficient in structure'? They are axiomatic because they are self-evidently always false.
The problem of empirical truths is that they are subject to time, which means at one time they are true and eventually they are not. ...
There is nothing necessary about an empirical truth eventually becoming false.
The truth value, through the passing of time, in turn becomes relegates to a facet of "memory" and inherently takes on an entirely different abstract nature from which the empirical cannot be seperated.
No idea what you are talking about?
A higher degree of truth is truth which is relativistically moving towards a greater degree of unity as "the cat sat on the mat" has only so many parts which exist through a relation with further parts. With the increase in particle relations comes an increase in observing a "whole" in the respect their is less potentiality available and more actualization.
What tosh, specifying the date and time of the observation makes the cat being on the cat on Wednesday at two fifteen no more real than the cat being on the mat.
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". ...
What 'multiple realities'? The statements are just true or false under one reality.
Their may be "one reality" but this "oneness" is approximated through an inherent multiplicity with the increase in relations observing a movement towards greater unity. So "while the cat sat on the mat" may be "one" statement this one statement may exist through multiple realities of either "John's" or "Jane's" house. With the observation of "the cat sat on the mat at Janes" comes a cessation of the possibility of it sitting at John's and a potential statement (of it sitting at John's) is self-negated in the face of it "sitting at Janes". Actuality is unity with potentiality observing an inherent multiplicity as an absence of structure.
Well for sure if you wanted to do Logic purely by the negation of all the other contingent propositions you probably could but you'd be dead before you got to the point. This is why I think you're trying to construct some kind of semiotic of Logic based upon some kind of deconstructionist metaphysic of language but you ignore, I think, the relationship between Logic, Language, Truth and the World as you appear to think it all just a self-contained language system.
The same question applies to you as well...What are you trying to achieve?
I'm trying to understand the philosophical point you are trying so hard to make.

Why do such as you never answer a question?
The negation of the cat sitting on the mat, still requires an inherently expanding form of negation as this negation must maintain itself as constant if the proposition is to maintain its truth value. ...
No it doesn't, it just requires there to be no cat sitting upon the mat.
The nature of logic, in the respects, has inherently moving properties of expansion and contraction that exists under a form of directive movement which acts as the foundation of the statement itself. ...
The nature of Logic is that there are states of affairs and things.
The linear nature of the proposition observes that the nature of true values stem inherently from limits that exist both outside and through logic and we are left with logic (and its defining properties) as being extensions of limits existing through limits. ...
No idea what you are saying?
Logic is movement with this continual movement acting as the limit through direction which enables logic to exist.
What enables Logic to exist is that there are states of affairs and things, what allows us to talk about it and formalise it is that there are self-conscious beings with a language.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:30 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:Logic extends from limit as a form of limit itself with all limit being the foundation of structure. ...
You know how you keep accusing others of word salad?

Logic, in my personal opinion, extends from there being states of affairs or things. No states of affairs or things, no Logic.

So logic is just personal opinion to you? You have to elaborate on your point about word salad...as it is just a word salad.
You are trying to seperate logic from certain facets of reality when in reality I am stating they are one and the same.
Which 'facets of reality' are you talking about as as far as I can understand you are using a conceptual metaphysic that you then squeeze everything into. The 'facets of reality' I use are that there are states of affairs or things and that is why there is Logic.

So logic is subject to your interpretation?

But that "time" is merely a statement of relation where one time exists relative to another time. The proposition "x" may be true for "y" time, but "y" is not stated in the proposition in one respect while in a seperate respect the proposition changes value when presented with "z".
Again you ignore the tautologies and contradictions as being necessarily true and seem only concerned with the contingent propositions, if things or states of affairs change then the proposition then just becomes true or false respectively.

The tautalogie is only true if it is composed of and composes further tautalogies, ad-infinitum, with any deficiency in this continuity leading to an inherent falsity as contradiction (or deficiency in truth).

All propositions as either being "true or false" is a "true or false proposition that must continue ad-infinitum with this infinite nature observing a simultaneously element of both true and false under a neutral limit as the linear statement itself.

An "axiomatic-truth"...self-evident truth...a phenomena which exists as self-evident through self-evidence.

Contradictions are axiomatic in both the respect they are contradictory (deficient in structure) and composed of parts that are not contradictory. ...
How are they 'deficient in structure'? They are axiomatic because they are self-evidently always false.

A contradiction is that which cancels itself out and hence becomes deficient in structure, this nature of cancelation or negation is evident if and only if there is something which is being canceled out...hence an element of truth is observe and a contradiction is merely a statement of relation and not a thing in itself.

The problem of empirical truths is that they are subject to time, which means at one time they are true and eventually they are not. ...
There is nothing necessary about an empirical truth eventually becoming false.

"The cat sat on the mat" eventually becomes false through the course of time when observing time from another locality.

The truth value, through the passing of time, in turn becomes relegates to a facet of "memory" and inherently takes on an entirely different abstract nature from which the empirical cannot be seperated.
No idea what you are talking about?

The cat sat on the mat is a past tense statement hence cannot be observed through the empirical senses as it cannot be observed "now"; hence the empirical reality becomes an abstract one through memory.

A higher degree of truth is truth which is relativistically moving towards a greater degree of unity as "the cat sat on the mat" has only so many parts which exist through a relation with further parts. With the increase in particle relations comes an increase in observing a "whole" in the respect their is less potentiality available and more actualization.
What tosh, specifying the date and time of the observation makes the cat being on the cat on Wednesday at two fifteen no more real than the cat being on the mat.

It becomes more real in the respect it is more localized as a greater degree of specific relations.
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". ...
What 'multiple realities'? The statements are just true or false under one reality.
Their may be "one reality" but this "oneness" is approximated through an inherent multiplicity with the increase in relations observing a movement towards greater unity. So "while the cat sat on the mat" may be "one" statement this one statement may exist through multiple realities of either "John's" or "Jane's" house. With the observation of "the cat sat on the mat at Janes" comes a cessation of the possibility of it sitting at John's and a potential statement (of it sitting at John's) is self-negated in the face of it "sitting at Janes". Actuality is unity with potentiality observing an inherent multiplicity as an absence of structure.
Well for sure if you wanted to do Logic purely by the negation of all the other contingent propositions you probably could but you'd be dead before you got to the point. This is why I think you're trying to construct some kind of semiotic of Logic based upon some kind of deconstructionist metaphysic of language but you ignore, I think, the relationship between Logic, Language, Truth and the World as you appear to think it all just a self-contained language system.

All logic, language, truth, empirical/abstract phenomena, etc. exist through limit as limit with all limit as self-contained through limit.
The same question applies to you as well...What are you trying to achieve?
I'm trying to understand the philosophical point you are trying so hard to make.

Why do such as you never answer a question?

The negation of the cat sitting on the mat, still requires an inherently expanding form of negation as this negation must maintain itself as constant if the proposition is to maintain its truth value. ...
No it doesn't, it just requires there to be no cat sitting upon the mat.

The the negation of the cat sitting on the mat requires a further definition of time and space which compose the relations through which "the cat did not sit on the mat".
The nature of logic, in the respects, has inherently moving properties of expansion and contraction that exists under a form of directive movement which acts as the foundation of the statement itself. ...
The nature of Logic is that there are states of affairs and things.

And this state of affairs and things are limits in themselves extending from further limits.
The linear nature of the proposition observes that the nature of true values stem inherently from limits that exist both outside and through logic and we are left with logic (and its defining properties) as being extensions of limits existing through limits. ...
No idea what you are saying?

Logic as definition observes definition as clarity through a percieved structure with this structure existing through limits. Limits are the foundation of logic.
Logic is movement with this continual movement acting as the limit through direction which enables logic to exist.
What enables Logic to exist is that there are states of affairs and things, what allows us to talk about it and formalise it is that there are self-conscious beings with a language.

See above.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:11 pm