Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 5048
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Post by Skepdick »

Speakpigeon wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:55 pm The result is for all of us to see today: mathematicians now believe that logic in the sense it was understood in the Aristotelian tradition is a figment of the imagination, a philosophical construct, and claim instead that there is an infinite number of logics.
It is a figment of the imagination. Logic takes place in human minds. That is what my mind does - it imagines stuff. Some of the stuff my mind imagines is logic.

It's part and parcel of the whole "creativity" thing. I have absolutely no idea why you think that's a "bad" thing.
Speakpigeon wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:55 pm They essentially started out with Boole, Pierce and Frege trying to produce a model of the logic of human reasoning. Then they failed. Then they disagreed as to which model was best. Then they went their separate ways, and now any mathematicians can make up their own private pseudo-logic, from 1st order, to 2nd order, to intuitionistic, to paraconsistent, to whatever they fancy when they get up in the morning. This has to be the most massive failure of the rational mind ever.
You see the democratization of logic as a "massive failure" of logic?!?!? You see the accessibility of higher order logic to millions of people as a bad thing ?

What sort of elitist ethic are you making this claim from?

What sort of cookie-cuttter robotic politburo "rational mind" would you rather impose on us?
Speakpigeon wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:55 pm Mathematicians will be the laughing-stock of future generations who will look back in dismay at the mess mathematical logic is in now.
For as long as Philosophers exist, Mathematicians are at no risk of becoming a laughing stock.
User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 983
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Post by Speakpigeon »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:35 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:39 pm Yet another fallacious comment. I didn't say that we needed dictionaries to be able to speak.

However, if you want to know the etymology, you look up a dictionary, you don't believe some false etymology made up by some anonymous Internet user.
EB
If you want to know about the etymology of the words that I invent, I am probably the only person you can ask about it...
First off, you need to look up a dictionary because you clearly don't know what the word "etymology" means:
Etymology 1. The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:35 pm No dictionary could possibly tell you about my protologisms.
And who cares?
Skepdick wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:35 pm But if you insist that I require Dictionary approval before I re-purpose or invent a new phrase, please do let me know where I can get the forms required to ask for permission...
Yet another fallacious comment.
EB
User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 983
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Post by Speakpigeon »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:25 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:55 pm The result is for all of us to see today: mathematicians now believe that logic in the sense it was understood in the Aristotelian tradition is a figment of the imagination, a philosophical construct, and claim instead that there is an infinite number of logics.
It is a figment of the imagination. Logic takes place in human minds. That is what my mind does - it imagines stuff. Some of the stuff my mind imagines is logic.

It's part and parcel of the whole "creativity" thing. I have absolutely no idea why you think that's a "bad" thing.
Speakpigeon wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:55 pm They essentially started out with Boole, Pierce and Frege trying to produce a model of the logic of human reasoning. Then they failed. Then they disagreed as to which model was best. Then they went their separate ways, and now any mathematicians can make up their own private pseudo-logic, from 1st order, to 2nd order, to intuitionistic, to paraconsistent, to whatever they fancy when they get up in the morning. This has to be the most massive failure of the rational mind ever.
You see the democratization of logic as a "massive failure" of logic?!?!? You see the accessibility of higher order logic to millions of people as a bad thing ?

What sort of elitist ethic are you making this claim from?

What sort of cookie-cuttter robotic politburo "rational mind" would you rather impose on us?
Speakpigeon wrote: Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:55 pm Mathematicians will be the laughing-stock of future generations who will look back in dismay at the mess mathematical logic is in now.
For as long as Philosophers exist, Mathematicians are at no risk of becoming a laughing stock.
Yet another fallacious post.
EB
Skepdick
Posts: 5048
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Post by Skepdick »

Speakpigeon wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:47 pm First off, you need to look up a dictionary because you clearly don't know what the word "etymology" means.
Appeal to authority AND post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy! Round of applause required.

The word "etymology" had a meaning before it appeared in a dictionary.
Speakpigeon wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:47 pm And who cares?
You do. Apparently.

The very word "etymology" was once a protologism.
Speakpigeon wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:47 pm Yet another fallacious comment.
No need to tell us your comments are fallacious - just stop making them.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1706
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Post by Scott Mayers »

Speakpigeon wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:22 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:58 pm Etymology has ALWAYS had political interference. Dictionaries (and etymogoly) are written by people with OPINIONS that cannot be dismissed. Look up most of the biblical terms that present definite links to the prior Egyptians, for example, has been intentionally manipulated into scripts that had to pass political 'canonizing': censorship and book-burning, being the feature that destroys the proper history.

Are you suggesting that dictionaries are essentially opinions?!
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:58 pm The root parts of a word have to be looked up, not merely the full evolved term. Words evolve by constructing from prior terms and parts.
Which is why we need dictionaries to give the etymology of words. We don't need people to invent false etymologies.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:58 pm "Contradicition" comes from logic, not colloquial use of today's express uses or proprietary labeling. Most of the population at all times are relatively uneducatied to formal terms of logic.
The etymology of "contradiction" is as follows:
The prefix Contra- comes from the Latin contrā, meaning against (see kom in Indo-European roots).
Contradiction litereally means "speak contrary to".
Contrary comes from the Middle English contrarie, from Anglo-Norman, from Latin contrārius, contrā, against.
So, nothing to do with "with a third option asserted" as you claim.
EB
I disagree. The origins come from the thinkers of the Greek idea of proving things WITHOUT bias to meaning. Thus the safe way to prevent bias ABOUT confusing thoughts is to not bias reality as REQUIRING to deny what cannot SEEM rational. The Pythagoreans realized the risk of assuming what was 'rational' is sufficient to express all numbers.

Contradiction, which has evolved to mean something that is not acceptable in argument, is postulated apiori.The term begun neutral and so it makes sense that the origins were neutral. The meaning of this to refer to something uncomfortable is an emotional extention of the logical meaning, like how a term that begun as a neutral description of one's place of origin, ....for instance, ...like those from Nigeria traders as "Nigers" ...now, properly "Nigerian", became a derogatory emotional term due to how people thought OF them with regards to slavery. The term "contradiction" was distinctly a reference to being able to have three (or more) values to something assumed limited to two. That's the neutral meaning of it as the ancients would have interpreted it when developing intellectual reflection about the world.
User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 983
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Post by Speakpigeon »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:19 am
Speakpigeon wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:22 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:58 pm Etymology has ALWAYS had political interference. Dictionaries (and etymogoly) are written by people with OPINIONS that cannot be dismissed. Look up most of the biblical terms that present definite links to the prior Egyptians, for example, has been intentionally manipulated into scripts that had to pass political 'canonizing': censorship and book-burning, being the feature that destroys the proper history.

Are you suggesting that dictionaries are essentially opinions?!
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:58 pm The root parts of a word have to be looked up, not merely the full evolved term. Words evolve by constructing from prior terms and parts.
Which is why we need dictionaries to give the etymology of words. We don't need people to invent false etymologies.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:58 pm "Contradicition" comes from logic, not colloquial use of today's express uses or proprietary labeling. Most of the population at all times are relatively uneducatied to formal terms of logic.
The etymology of "contradiction" is as follows:
The prefix Contra- comes from the Latin contrā, meaning against (see kom in Indo-European roots).
Contradiction litereally means "speak contrary to".
Contrary comes from the Middle English contrarie, from Anglo-Norman, from Latin contrārius, contrā, against.
So, nothing to do with "with a third option asserted" as you claim.
EB
I disagree.
Sure, you disagree with the etymology of the word "contradiction" given by all serious dictionaries.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:19 am The origins come from the thinkers of the Greek idea of proving things WITHOUT bias to meaning.
Without bias to meaning?! Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. What I understand is the etymology of the word "contradiction" given by all serious dictionaries.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:19 am Thus the safe way to prevent bias ABOUT confusing thoughts is to not bias reality as REQUIRING to deny what cannot SEEM rational. The Pythagoreans realized the risk of assuming what was 'rational' is sufficient to express all numbers.
Sorry, still completely meaningless to me.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:19 am Contradiction, which has evolved to mean something that is not acceptable in argument, is postulated apiori.The term begun neutral and so it makes sense that the origins were neutral. The meaning of this to refer to something uncomfortable is an emotional extention of the logical meaning, like how a term that begun as a neutral description of one's place of origin, ....for instance, ...like those from Nigeria traders as "Nigers" ...now, properly "Nigerian", became a derogatory emotional term due to how people thought OF them with regards to slavery. The term "contradiction" was distinctly a reference to being able to have three (or more) values to something assumed limited to two. That's the neutral meaning of it as the ancients would have interpreted it when developing intellectual reflection about the world.
This is all made up and essentially nonsensical.
Have a good day.
EB
User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 983
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Post by Speakpigeon »

Hiroshi Satow wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:26 am Dear logicians!

I think I’ve come up with something beyond the Law of Noncontradiction. Unfortunately, I’m not a trained philosopher, let alone a logician. I’m not sure whether I’m right or wrong, or rather, how wrong I am and how I am wrong. Anyway, here is what I’ve been thinking about.

In Plato’s Republic Socrates says “It is obvious that the same thing will never or suffer opposites in the same respect in relation to the same thing and at the same time.”(Republic 4:436b) Aristotle writes, “The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect.”(Metaphysics G, 3, 1005b18-20)

These are thought of as advocating the law of noncontradiction. Admitting of course what they say, in my opinion, there can be another kind of contradiction: It is that you cannot do two things at the same time, be they contradictory or not to one another. The so-called law of noncontradiction is just one case of it. To be sure, it cannot be true that you can take a step forward with both the right and the left legs at the same time. If you are using the right leg, to take a step forward, then you are not using the left one, and vice versa. To simultaneously use them both is against the law of noncontradiction, which is why you never can make it.

However, it seems to me that it also cannot be the case that you can take a step forward with the right leg twice at the same time. This is because you can use your right leg only once at a time. To use the right leg does not necessarily contradict with the use of the right leg. On the contrary, they are completely the same thing. No inconsistency can be found between the use of the right leg and the use of the right leg. Regardless, on no account can you afford to do that.

So, at least in some cases, I think you can say that in the world there can be found two facts that cannot concur, happening simultaneously, which might be named the Law of Nonconcurrence or whatever, one of which you call the Law of Noncontradiction, and the other the law of Nonrecurrence or something like that.

Thinking along these lines, the Law of Noncontradiction is not the ultimate law but can be derived from the Law of Nonconcurrence, just as the Law of Nonrecurrence is.

Could any one of you be kind enough to tell or teach me how I am wrong and/or how wrong I am?
Sorry, there are no logicians here.
EB
Skepdick
Posts: 5048
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

Post by Skepdick »

Speakpigeon wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:15 pm Sorry, there are no logicians here.
EB
Frenchie, you are the one who insists on having a science of logic. A science to investigate "logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings".

If logic is, in fact, an "objective performance and manifest capability of human beings" then ALL humans are logicians.
Post Reply