2. A dot is composed of further dots as a line is reducible to a dot from a relatively different position. Given, from your stance, all is relative then the dot is not a dot under a different context. From a further context the dot exists as a mini-line.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:42 amI have responded to 1 & 3 in the other threads.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:40 pm1. The LNC is absolute within its defined context of usage thus necessitating absolutes therefore not all is relative.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:10 am
You referenced but did not read fully, i.e.
"Unfortunately, so little remains of Heraclitus' aphorisms that not much about his philosophy can be said with certainty."
Due to the above limitations your reference cannot be credible.
What is most critical within the LNC is the criteria 'same sense'.
If one can counter the LNC within the same time [re formal logic], you are not likely to counter it within the same sense.
I believe what most people misunderstand is the LNC is one of the Three Laws of Logic which is confined to Traditional and Formal logic and not to other forms of logic, e.g. fuzzy, intuitional logic and others.
Therefore the LNC is not an absolute Law of all Logic.
As Kant stated, formal logic has its advantage merely based on its limitations.
Therefore the LNC is only valid within its defined framework.
Nevertheless the OP is countering the LNC within its framework but unsuccessfully due to his ignorance of the criteria of 'same sense', i.e. trying to be a smart-alec but exposed as a smart-fool.
So one should not fool around with the LNC within its stipulated framework, i.e. applicable to traditional and formal logic only, else it will make one a fool.
2. An instance is a duration of time in which one phenomenon changes into another. Given it is a duration of time both P and -P exist simultaneously within said length of time given the instant of change as a length is both phenomenon occurring within the same time period. X changing into Y within a second observes both X and Y occur within a second. This second can be replace with millisecond, etc. as the second is the instant of change. All instants are durations at the meta scale.
3. The potentiality of A to change to B or C necessitates both B and C existing simultaneously within the context of "potentiality" at the same time.
2. You are trying to rhetorical and deceptive.
In the case of "same time" re the LNC mean the same instance to the dot not within a duration of time or length of time, which can be nano-seconds, second, minutes or hours, etc.
In a duration or length of time, there is a continuous flow from t1 to t2, t3 and so on with each 't' in measured in the smallest nano-seconds or assumed to the in absolute same time.
When the potentiality of a croc egg at t1 is determined in terms of its specific sex at t2, then we are not taking about the 'same time' for the purpose of the LNC.
The practical use of the LNC in this case will enable eggs of the different sex to be separated from one another.
As I had stated, don't try to be a smart-alec with the application of the LNC within traditional, formal, conventional logic.
All changes occur through a length of time where x changes into y, looking at the whole of this length of time both x and y occur simultaneously within this length. An "instant" may be 1 second or 1 nano second, yet it is still a length. Given change occurs at a "dot" a "dot" contains both elements of change, that which existed prior and that which existed later. Change exists as a dualism within a given dot.