All Contexts are Simultaneously True and False

[Eodnhoj7]

All assertions are a tautology of the asserter.

Naturally. That is the default pre-supposition of the Logos. One's assertions are true - if they weren't, why one wouldn't assert them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

Phenomenon are true based upon their ability to align with phenomenon.

A unicorn is real as a painting.
A unicorn is unreal as an organism.

What determines the truth of an assertion is its ability to align with phenomenon. Truth is the symmetry between phenomenon.

[Skepdick]

Phenomenon are true based upon their ability to align with phenomenon.

A unicorn is real as a painting.
A unicorn is unreal as an organism.

What determines the truth of an assertion is its ability to align with phenomenon. Truth is the symmetry between phenomenon.

I have provided you with an objective contradiction phenomenon.

Interpret it as you will.

[bahman]

It is true as self referential, false as open to further interpretation....so yes it is true and false.

There is only one interpretation for the title.

Yes, true and false.

What is the point of discussion if any assertion is false and true at the same time? I mean why you bother.

[Eodnhoj7]

Phenomenon are true based upon their ability to align with phenomenon.

A unicorn is real as a painting.
A unicorn is unreal as an organism.

What determines the truth of an assertion is its ability to align with phenomenon. Truth is the symmetry between phenomenon.

I have provided you with an objective contradiction phenomenon.

Interpret it as you will.

You see that is the problem, truth exists as the alignment of contexts as contexts are constant.

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) v ((P=P)=/=(-P=-P)) cannot be programmed directly under some logic calculators. Others it most likely can. The act of computation is grounded in how the computer is formed...you can program it to reflect anything, as such is exists under the laws of recursion and is an extension of the context which forms it.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28741


Computing is an extension of the entropic nature of physics, it is a tautological extension of the laws which form it....assuming you are using it as empirical evidence.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is only one interpretation for the title.

Yes, true and false.

What is the point of discussion if any assertion is false and true at the same time? I mean why you bother.

Definition is truth value.

[Skepdick]

Definition is truth value.

Sure.

Aristotle defined (P ∧ ¬P) as False.
I defined (P ∧ ¬P) as True.

Whose definition has this thing you call "truth-value"?

[bahman]

Yes, true and false.

What is the point of discussion if any assertion is false and true at the same time? I mean why you bother.

Definition is truth value.

There cannot be any truth-value if any assertion is true and false at the same time.

[Skepdick]

There cannot be any truth-value if any assertion is true and false at the same time.

Of course there can be!

The assertion is in true-false superposition.

You are uncertain as to whether it's true or false. Your state of uncertainty is true.

[bahman]

There cannot be any truth-value if any assertion is true and false at the same time.

Of course there can be!

The assertion is in true-false superposition.

You are uncertain as to whether it's true or false. Your state of uncertainty is true.

Superposition is about this and that instead of false and true.

[Skepdick]

Superposition is about this and that instead of false and true.

Schrödinger's cat is dead.
Schrödinger's car is alive.

Both of the above are true until you take a reading.

[bahman]

Superposition is about this and that instead of false and true.

Schrödinger's cat is dead.
Schrödinger's car is alive.

Both of the above are true until you take a reading.

Schrödinger's cat is dead is "this" and Schrödinger's cat is alive is "that".

[Skepdick]

Schrödinger's cat is dead is "this" and Schrödinger's cat is alive is "that".

This is true; and that is true at the same time.

Is just uncertainty.

[bahman]

Schrödinger's cat is dead is "this" and Schrödinger's cat is alive is "that".

This is true; and that is true at the same time.

Is just uncertainty.

True.

[Eodnhoj7]

Definition is truth value.

Sure.

Aristotle defined (P ∧ ¬P) as False.
I defined (P ∧ ¬P) as True.

Whose definition has this thing you call "truth-value"?

((P=P)v(P=/=-P)) expresses either the law of identity is true or the principle of non contradiction is true. If one is false, then P=-P either way.

[Skepdick]

((P=P)v(P=/=-P)) expresses either the law of identity is true or the principle of non contradiction is true. If one is false, then P=-P either way.

LEM is a tautology. You don't need it - you can derive it from identity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaconescu's_theorem