Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7782
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:42 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:40 pm
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.
1. The LNC is absolute within its defined context of usage thus necessitating absolutes therefore not all is relative.

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.
I have responded to 1 & 3 in the other threads.

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.
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.

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.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 7964
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:42 am I have responded to 1 & 3 in the other threads.

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.
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.

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.
Not sure what is your point in relation to the OP.
Note,
In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
wiki
Same time is same duration of time as specific in the context.
Thus a man [p] is not a woman [-p] must be considered in the same time duration whether it is one year, one month, one hour, one minute or 1 nano-second.

In the general context of basic physical features,
Caster Semenya is a woman [P] and not male [-p].
So the LNC applies in this case, i.e. same time and same context.
  • Caster Semenya is a famous South Africa 800 meters runner, whilst a female in general, could not compete as a woman in the 2020 Olympics due to being born with a high level of male hormones in her body. So within the context of the Olympic games, Semenya is not-p [not a woman] even though physically she has all the female reproductive organs and breasts.
So one can claim Caster Semenya is both at the same time a woman and a man.
But note, that is not taking into consideration the context of amount of male hormones in the body,
Caster Semenya is a woman [P] and a male [-p] at the same time but not in the same context [physical state vs hormonal state]. So the LNC does not apply in this case, i.e. same time and different context.

Get it?

As I had stated, don't try to be a smart-alec with the application of the LNC within traditional, formal, conventional logic, otherwise it will exposed you as a smart-fool instead.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7782
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 9:27 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:42 am I have responded to 1 & 3 in the other threads.

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.
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.

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.
Not sure what is your point in relation to the OP.
Note,
In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
wiki
Same time is same duration of time as specific in the context.
Thus a man [p] is not a woman [-p] must be considered in the same time duration whether it is one year, one month, one hour, one minute or 1 nano-second.

In the general context of basic physical features,
Caster Semenya is a woman [P] and not male [-p].
So the LNC applies in this case, i.e. same time and same context.
  • Caster Semenya is a famous South Africa 800 meters runner, whilst a female in general, could not compete as a woman in the 2020 Olympics due to being born with a high level of male hormones in her body. So within the context of the Olympic games, Semenya is not-p [not a woman] even though physically she has all the female reproductive organs and breasts.
So one can claim Caster Semenya is both at the same time a woman and a man.
But note, that is not taking into consideration the context of amount of male hormones in the body,
Caster Semenya is a woman [P] and a male [-p] at the same time but not in the same context [physical state vs hormonal state]. So the LNC does not apply in this case, i.e. same time and different context.

Get it?

As I had stated, don't try to be a smart-alec with the application of the LNC within traditional, formal, conventional logic, otherwise it will exposed you as a smart-fool instead.
1. A dot is an instance of change where A turns to B. As an instant of change it contains both A and B. Both A and B occur in that instant. Red changing to yellow results in the instant of change, ie red changing to yellow, as both red and yellow.

2. The LNC does not exist outside of traditional, formal, conventional logic and I am not arguing for traditional, formal, conventional logic. Outside of such logic the LNC is false given the LNC is relative (according to you).

4. The statement ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) observes P=P and -P=-P equate through the principle of identity as both P and -P are subject to the principle of identity. However ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) breaks down to P=-P yet ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is necessary for P=-P. Both P and -P equate through a singular context.

3. A hormonal state is a physical state as the hormonal state is physical given hormones are a physical substance. Semenya is both a man and a woman physically.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 6116
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by attofishpi »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:45 pm 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.

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.


1. A dot is an instance of change where A turns to B.
Sure, if A and B are mutually exclusive. You clearly don't understand what tiime is ergo spaace.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Terrapin Station »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:50 am Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.
You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration. Even the instant of swallowing food is a duration of time. There is no action which does not occur over a duration of time thus something may both be itself and not be itself at the same time considering time is a length.
That's sure not how the word "thus" (or "therefore" etc.) works.

The part that you write after "thus" ("therefore" etc.) has to be a logical implication of the stuff that you wrote before it.
Skepdick
Posts: 9153
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:23 pm That's sure not how the word "thus" (or "therefore" etc.) works.

The part that you write after "thus" ("therefore" etc.) has to be a logical implication of the stuff that you wrote before it.
How logical implication does; or doesn't work entirely depends on the semantics of the logical system in which you are working.

To make such an uncontextualised statement without being explicit about the logical system you have in mind, you are being the usual navel-gazing twat that you are.

P.S Happy new year, you navel-gazing twat!
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7782
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:45 pm 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.

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.


1. A dot is an instance of change where A turns to B.
Sure, if A and B are mutually exclusive. You clearly don't understand what tiime is ergo spaace.
And space is time given one space changes to another space thus multiplying space. Time is changing space. X changing into Y results in both X and Y occuring at the same interval of time if one is to step back and magnifying the point of change; ie the change occurs at a single point and this single point is both x and y.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7782
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:23 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:50 am Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.
You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration. Even the instant of swallowing food is a duration of time. There is no action which does not occur over a duration of time thus something may both be itself and not be itself at the same time considering time is a length.
That's sure not how the word "thus" (or "therefore" etc.) works.

The part that you write after "thus" ("therefore" etc.) has to be a logical implication of the stuff that you wrote before it.
"Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown."

1. Time is a duration.

2. Therefore there is a timeline as a line is a duration and so is time. (a line is a duration is an assumed and unmentioned premise).

3. As a timeline multiple events can occur as part of the same line. "X" line changing into "Y" line results in two lines which are part of a larger line which is both "x" and "y". The single timelines of "X" and "Y" are both events occurring within the same duration.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Terrapin Station »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:02 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:23 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:50 am Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.
You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration. Even the instant of swallowing food is a duration of time. There is no action which does not occur over a duration of time thus something may both be itself and not be itself at the same time considering time is a length.
That's sure not how the word "thus" (or "therefore" etc.) works.

The part that you write after "thus" ("therefore" etc.) has to be a logical implication of the stuff that you wrote before it.
"Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown."

1. Time is a duration.

2. Therefore there is a timeline as a line is a duration and so is time. (a line is a duration is an assumed and unmentioned premise).

3. As a timeline multiple events can occur as part of the same line. "X" line changing into "Y" line results in two lines which are part of a larger line which is both "x" and "y". The single timelines of "X" and "Y" are both events occurring within the same duration.
Is x is an F and y is an F, it doesn't imply that x has properties of y (aside from "sharing" Fness).

For example, bats are animals, and dogs are animals. Therefore dogs can fly.

Um, no. That's not how it works.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 5304
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Sculptor »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:50 am Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.
You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration. Even the instant of swallowing food is a duration of time. There is no action which does not occur over a duration of time thus something may both be itself and not be itself at the same time considering time is a length.
Insane.
You have pointed to no contradiction.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7782
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:40 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:02 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:23 pm

That's sure not how the word "thus" (or "therefore" etc.) works.

The part that you write after "thus" ("therefore" etc.) has to be a logical implication of the stuff that you wrote before it.
"Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown."

1. Time is a duration.

2. Therefore there is a timeline as a line is a duration and so is time. (a line is a duration is an assumed and unmentioned premise).

3. As a timeline multiple events can occur as part of the same line. "X" line changing into "Y" line results in two lines which are part of a larger line which is both "x" and "y". The single timelines of "X" and "Y" are both events occurring within the same duration.
Is x is an F and y is an F, it doesn't imply that x has properties of y (aside from "sharing" Fness).

For example, bats are animals, and dogs are animals. Therefore dogs can fly.

Um, no. That's not how it works.
The argument is about empirical time not logic. Given all change occurs at a specific point that specific point is both A and -A. Dually given a further magnification of the point into a duration, such as a line, A exists as one part of the duration and -A as another part of the duration. Both A and -A equate as same parts of the duration given the duration is one moment.

Now to equality:

There is nothing in reality which shows a complete equality thus equivocation must occur through a medial shared property. Even the statement (2+1)=(1+1+1) observes two sets in the first expression and three in the second. They both equate through the medial term of 3 even though they are different sets. Dually using the example of bats and dogs: bat are animals and dogs are animals thus both dogs and bats eat; while the bat may fly and the dog may not fly they both equate as animals given an animal may fly or may not fly (the dog flying because it is equal to the bat, and the bat flies, does not occur given an animal may fly or not fly). Bats are equal to dogs in the respect both are animals yet even in this equality both the bat and the dog are not the same.

Even the statement 1=1 observes each 1 as existing in a different time and space thus each 1 or 1=1 is distinctly different; they both share 1 even though both 1s are different (a 1 may equate to a bird and another to a cow or 1 may equate to a bird in x time and space and another 1 may equate to a bird in y time and space). Thus even in equivocation total equivocation does not occur. Given 1=1 implies total equivocation this points to a multiplicity of 1s thus individual distinctness of the 1s in time and space due to multiple positions. Thus even in total equivocation equivocation does not occur.

Equivocation occurs in grades at best and as grades maintains the property of both existing and not-existing.



Now back to time. The example of the act of swallowing, which is a duration of time, observes the food in position A of the throat and in position B of the throat because even thought both position A and position B are distinct positions both these positions occur under the same duration, ie swallowing. Only in breaking down the duration into meta durations does a distinction occur but this distinction does not exist under the much larger duration. Even in breaking down the duration into a meta-duration one find the food in positions A1 and A2 during said duration. Given time is a duration two different things exist at the same time given they exist under the same duration.

Because no two things are completely the same equivocation has to occur through a medial property. This medial property is the same thing repeated.

Equality both exists and does not exist.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7782
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:50 am Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.
You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration. Even the instant of swallowing food is a duration of time. There is no action which does not occur over a duration of time thus something may both be itself and not be itself at the same time considering time is a length.
Insane.
You have pointed to no contradiction.
And you have not provided a counter argument thus pointed to nothing. If I am wrong, explain why.

I am not pointing to a contradiction I am pointing to +P=-P. If +P=/=-P is false then +P=-P. Examples of this can be seen in a square peg and a square hole where both the peg and the hole equate through their squareness. Another example is both +1 and -1 on a number line both resulting in equal lines as equal distances as well as equal 0d points given a 0d point equals a 0d point.

Using the above OP as the primary example however points to both +P and -P occurring during the same duration of time, they happen at the same time.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 5304
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Sculptor »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:05 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:50 am Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.
You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration. Even the instant of swallowing food is a duration of time. There is no action which does not occur over a duration of time thus something may both be itself and not be itself at the same time considering time is a length.
Insane.
You have pointed to no contradiction.
And you have not provided a counter argument thus pointed to nothing. If I am wrong, explain why.
You have not presented an argument. You say there is a contradiction but failed to present on.
I'd love to offer a counter argument to any argument you are able to make.

I am not pointing to a contradiction I am pointing to +P=-P. If +P=/=-P is false then +P=-P. Examples of this can be seen in a square peg and a square hole where both the peg and the hole equate through their squareness. Another example is both +1 and -1 on a number line both resulting in equal lines as equal distances as well as equal 0d points given a 0d point equals a 0d point.

Using the above OP as the primary example however points to both +P and -P occurring during the same duration of time, they happen at the same time.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7782
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:08 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:05 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:00 am

Insane.
You have pointed to no contradiction.
And you have not provided a counter argument thus pointed to nothing. If I am wrong, explain why.
You have not presented an argument. You say there is a contradiction but failed to present on.
I'd love to offer a counter argument to any argument you are able to make.

I am not pointing to a contradiction I am pointing to +P=-P. If +P=/=-P is false then +P=-P. Examples of this can be seen in a square peg and a square hole where both the peg and the hole equate through their squareness. Another example is both +1 and -1 on a number line both resulting in equal lines as equal distances as well as equal 0d points given a 0d point equals a 0d point.

Using the above OP as the primary example however points to both +P and -P occurring during the same duration of time, they happen at the same time.
And where did I say there was a contradiction if I am arguing for equivocation?

The argument can be summated as follows:

1. A moment of time is a duration.

2. During a duration two phenomenon can exist as one given both phenomenon exist under the same duration.
2a. Example: The moment of swallowing observes the point in both Point A of the throat and Point B.

3. During the moment of time two phenomenon can exist as one.

4. Two distinct phenomenon cannot exist at the same time in the law of non-contradiction yet point 3 argues the opposite.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Scott Mayers »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:50 am Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.
You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration. Even the instant of swallowing food is a duration of time. There is no action which does not occur over a duration of time thus something may both be itself and not be itself at the same time considering time is a length.
I thought that maybe you understood the first three laws in all logics by now. The rules of logic require...

(1) some consistent rule that ASSIGNS one thing about reality to some symbolic representation. Thus the "identity" of some referent used in argument has to remain CONSTANT or you lose any means to measure anything else by. Thus, the first rule of logic regarding 'identity' demands that given some reality "A" (the meaning of something defined) we can assign arbrarily some symbol,llike, "A", that POINTS to the reality. The expression, "A = A" is meant to merely assert that we accept that SOMETHING in any system of reasoning (logic) that we AGREE to maintain fixed. This does not mean that whatver "A" refers to in meaning is unable to change or be inconsistent. What it means is that the SIGN referencing 'equality', "=", is what is MEANT and that the left and right side coincidence of the dummy symbol, "A", is meant only to help you infer the meaning of "equality" or SAMENESS.

Then, we need to define what is "NOT EQUIVALENT" in contrast. The 'negation' symbol for this is actually a 'complementary' concept and is where we DEFINE a "contradiction" as that which allows some "A" to NEGATE what we just 'identified' in (1):

(2) Some rule exists regarding what is NOT the same (or lack a fixed identity). This is the "complement" and can either be expressed as "A ≠ Ā" or, as many do, express this as either "the law of non-contradiction" ....OR, "the law of contradiction", both that tend to imply that we cannot allow A ≠ Ā It is probably better to just assert this as the Definition of the Complement of Identity.

The third rule that is common to all such systems is to define whether you ACCEPT the Contradiction, usually referred to as "The Exclusion of the Third (or 'middle')" and this rule is not always necessary but CAN be more specific to BINARY options, of which 'true' or 'not true' reference. There still has to be some mention of this AT LEAST for the binary minimal and why you see it there regardless. Multivariable meanings can then ADD their own rules about what is true BEYOND mere binary options. So...

(3) Some rule that excludes SOME or ANY possible solutions by some standard. If you do not have a rule to exclude somethings, then the 'logic' serves no purpose given it is meant to determine what specifically to do in contrast to some perpetually indeterminate result. [But this still includes a means to determine IF something is or is not 'determinate' if need be.'

So your concern about this is moot. You still have to have some meaning to identify something, a means to know when it is not identical and what should be accepted ABOUT contradictions (con- means 'with'; -tra- is 'third' diction is 'spoken rule') and is not necessarily required to DENY except for the binary minimal. Because it is minimally required for the binary options, it is still true in SOME capacity for ALL logics. If it is not, any reason for something without these is 'paraconsistent' where it still covers all possibilities consistent SOMEWHERE. Thus, Totality itself does not require being consistent but may be 'paraconsistent' for being most inclusive of all but unable to DISCRIMINATE what is or is not 'true' as a whole.

[NOTE: I agree with your intentional meaning. Reality requires 'contradiction' necessarily. An easy example of this is how the defintion of "Infinity" in set theory is defined as "a set that is a proper subset of itself." This is 'contradictory' but DEFINING of something that we cannot literally conFINE or capture in time. That nature shows that no thing actually stays in one position ever assures us that all things move perpetually (no actual inertial zero speed of anything). As such, time does show that there is something unfixed in reality and thus can be relatively understood as 'contradictory' in the same way regarding infinites.]
Post Reply