Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6625
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Contradiction is a deficiency in truth, and hence a deception, and to counter the law of non-contradiction it must be shown to be contradictory and hence nullify itself leaving only truth remaining.
And show the proof as the picture you provided is three pictures in one: And old woman, young woman and woman with the picture itself observing two perspectives synthesizing into a third, with the breakdown of the third being the foundation from which the two perspective arise. The picture observes a dualism as one angle of awareness is the negative of the other (the old woman is not a young woman, the young woman is not an old woman) with both perspectives being simultaneously positive and negative in the same time in different respects.
What we observe as a contradiction is merely a deficiency in structure where 1+1=5 contains rational elements in themselves, but the statement is deficient in balance. Hence 1+1=5 as a contradiction, is a 1+1=5 as a deficient statement, with 1+1=5 containing an infinite number of variables to observe its completion as 1x+1x=5, 1x+1y=5, etc as a deficient statement is one without a proper form or function and hence is deficient in any limits.

The problem of the law of non-contradiction is that it is contradictory in the respect that -P observes a statement of deficiency where -P observes an absence of P and fundamentally exists if and only if P exists with P existing fundamentally as infinite variables in itself.

In these respects while P cannot equal -P, -P exists if and only if there is P, hence the law of non-contradiction is a law about deficiency and effectively observes a dualism between positive and negative values.

These values exist fundamentally as an observation of relation where P is observed if and only if there is -P and viceversa as a positive defines a negative and a negative cannot be observed without a positive.

In these respects the law of non-contradiction observes a dualism of “+” and “-“ existing through P as a neutral medial variable which P is the limit through which “+” and “-“ exist as limits and simultaneously unlimited in the respect “P” is a variable conducive to infinity.

The P, as a variable, effectively takes the place of infinity and in these respects the law of non-contradiction observes a dualism of positive infinity and negative infinity where this negative infinity, as a statement of relation of one infinity relative to another, necessitates multiple infinities existing within infinity. The reason for this is a deficiency in infinity is still an infinity, but observes a separation of infinity under multiple infinities as a deficiency in infinity observes a separation of infinity. However infinity cannot be separated without this act of separation resulting in multiple infinities. These multiple infinities effectively exist as ratios of the 1 infinity as unity, with these multiple infinities (while infinite) observing finiteness as the relation of parts. In these respects this negation of P, as negative infinity, is a relativistic statement observing a relation of parts as a negative is fundamentally an act of separation.
These multiple infinities within infinity effectively observes that infinite exists simultaneously as a temporal finite reality relative to the 1 infinity it composes. In these respects finiteness is the relation of multiple infinities with this multiplicity observing each infinity as simultaneously positive and negative at the same time in different respects where one positive infinity is the negative of another and vice versa.
The statement of P=P observes an inherent sense of separation in the respect that equality of variable to itself observes a separation in locality as what is unified cannot be equal to itself unless it exists through multiple localities. We can observe the variable of P existing in multiple localities within the statement of “P=P” as the equality sign observes P as directed both to the left and right of it and is effectively replicated through “=” as an observation of relation.

This separation of P through P=P effectively observes (P=P)= -P as this equality is a deficiency of P, with (P=P)؞-P observing P=P being separate from -P. In further terms P=P directs itself toward -P as the separation of P through P=P is through P as P negating itself where the separation of P is an absence of P. -P as a deficiency of P, exist through P fundamentally being separated, in turn observe P being directed back towards (P=P).
In these respects (P=P) ⇄ -P where relativistically speaking one cannot exist without the other and the positive and negative values inevitably lead one being directed to another through the variable (P in this case).

In simpler terms to say 1=1 observes two 1’s as 1 and 2 where this separation of the 1 observes -1 as the limit of separation. The equality of 1 is the separation of 1 with equality as “=” existing if and only if there are multiple 1’s. Equality in these respects is a statement of relation as separation where this separation of quantities is subject to quantification itself.
So 1=1 as 1 statement is reduced to 1 through the separation implied by “=” as -1. In these respects the law of non-contradiction observing P does not equal -P observes P and -P as fundamentally connected through a dualism in one respect under P as this absence of equality observes an absence as separation. In a separate respect P does not equal -P is a contradiction as P=P effectively exists as -P.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5482
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

You need to understand 'truth' is conditioned with a specific Framework and System invented [implicitly] by man.
The Law of Non-Contradiction is a specific law within the formal logic system which is used in various aspect of epistemology.

You cannot ignore the basic laws of formal logic, in this case getting rid of the LNC and still rely on formal logic to argue your case. This is why you are contradicting yourself.

For example within the scientific framework there are some basic assumptions.
You just cannot ignore any of these basic assumptions in your proof and still insist your conclusions are scientific.
Posts: 9253
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:11 am You are contradicting yourself.

You need to understand 'truth' is conditioned with a specific Framework and System invented [implicitly] by man.
The Law of Non-Contradiction is a specific law within the formal logic system which is used in various aspect of epistemology.

You cannot ignore the basic laws of formal logic, in this case getting rid of the LNC and still rely on formal logic to argue your case. This is why you are contradicting yourself.

For example within the scientific framework there are some basic assumptions.
You just cannot ignore any of these basic assumptions in your proof and still insist your conclusions are scientific.
A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms.

Before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something.

That something is no thing.

.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6625
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:11 am You are contradicting yourself.

You need to understand 'truth' is conditioned with a specific Framework and System invented [implicitly] by man.
The Law of Non-Contradiction is a specific law within the formal logic system which is used in various aspect of epistemology.

You cannot ignore the basic laws of formal logic, in this case getting rid of the LNC and still rely on formal logic to argue your case. This is why you are contradicting yourself.

For example within the scientific framework there are some basic assumptions.
You just cannot ignore any of these basic assumptions in your proof and still insist your conclusions are scientific.
Truth as condition by a specific framework is a specific framework giving premise to the principle that all laws of logic exist through relation.

This "law" as invented my man in turn leads to a problem of origin if man as measurer is taken on strictly relativistic terms, but these "boundary of relation" is a constant which gives premise to the foundation of man.

Actually the basic laws of formal logic do not have to be ignored, as I am not ignoring them know, they can be transcended by further laws which maintain the laws for what the are, but only as "part" of a larger framework and being composed of smaller frameworks.

The 3 laws of logic cannot maintain themselves as they have an element of randomoness in the respect they are "assumptions" of where to give foundation to reason.

You claim the law of logic, as truth, are subject to a framework as truth is dependent upon a framework, however this framework must exist relative to other frameworks and in these respects these laws are only frameworks....but these laws do not observe the necessity of a framework in their premise; hence they are deficient and contradictory.
mickthinks
Posts: 802
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg