## 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

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:26 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.
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 ALL 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.
1. There is no consistent rule of assigning a symbol to an object. I may observe 1 cow and attach 1 to it but 1 may equivocate to hamster, car, etc. In simple assigning one symbol may equate to a variety of phenomenon thus is subject to the fallacy of equivocation.

2. "Some rule existing for that which is not the same always" is not always the same as the variables may equivocate to anything. Dually, I can argue "myself" is not the same to "myself" as there may be multiple selves; however the multiple selves equate as 1 self thus a contradiction occurs as there are both one and many selves.

3. "A rule that excludes all possible solutions by some standard" would have to require universal observation as not everything is observable. Not everything is observable and we know this because of change. A change occurs and what was once not observed is now observed therefore implying a non observed state existing beyond the current state. Because not everything is observable we cannot make any "all" statements.

4. The assigning of a symbol to some aspect of reality observes the reverse as well given reality represents itself through symbols. Reality justifies symbols. Given the A=A implies the same time and two distinct things can occur at the same time, A=A is moot as it may equate to A=-A as well. An example of this is the moment of swallowing food, the food is both in position A and position B during this same moment as the moment encompasses a variety of movements.

Dually all points of change observe both A and -A (or B) simultaneously. This can be further observed in the state of potentiality where two different or opposing things exist at the same time. Potentiality is a time as potentiality exists within a duration of time; i.e.. A occurs, B and -B is the actual state of being potential (multiple conflicting states exist under the time span of potentiality). An example of this is Schrodinger's cat.

5. I am not speaking of binary options. The law of contradiction is not binary as both +P and -P share the same medial form of P. An example of this would be a square peg and a square hole equating through the square shape. In reference to the OP the third medial term would be "duration" or "point of change"; multiple phenomenon can occur during a duration while dually a point of change observes 2 elements occur at a single point.

6. I am not arguing for the existence of logic. Logic may require descrimination yet this discrimination first requires sameness thus P=P and P=-P. Where there is universal sameness there is nothing; I am arguing logic is nothing.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:54 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

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:39 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:26 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.
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 ALL 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.
1. The assigning of a symbol to some aspect of reality observes the reverse as well given reality represents itself through symbols. Reality justifies symbols. Given the A=A implies the same time and two distinct things can occur at the same time, A=A is moot as it may equate to A=-A as well. An example of this is the moment of swallowing food, the food is both in position A and position B during this same moment as the moment encompasses a variety of movements.

Dually all points of change observe both A and -A (or B) simultaneously. This can be further observed in the state of potentiality where two different or opposing things exist at the same time. Potentiality is a time as potentiality exists within a duration of time; i.e.. A occurs, B and -B is the actual state of being potential (multiple conflicting states exist under the time span of potentiality). An example of this is Schrodinger's cat.

2. I am not speaking of binary options. The law of contradiction is not binary as both +P and -P share the same medial form of P. An example of this would be a square peg and a square hole equating through the square shape. In reference to the OP the third medial term would be "duration" or "point of change"; multiple phenomenon can occur during a duration while dually a point of change observes 2 elements occur at a single point.

3. I am not arguing for the existence of logic. Logic may require descrimination yet this discrimination first requires sameness thus P=P and P=-P. Where there is universal sameness there is nothing; I am arguing logic is nothing.
I added a note above that you didn't notice just as you posted. That's why it is doesn't indicate an 'edit'.

Maybe you are referencing Paraconsistency ideas? Technically, it would be the position that Totality as a whole doesn't even need RULES (given logic is just a formalized set of rules). To a specific Universe within Totality, some, like ours, ARE 'consistent' by some standard set of 'laws' though.

I argue this when I say that if Totality 'originates', it originates from absolutely nothing. In this way, Totality at that state LACKS rules such that there is no law against it breaking laws. A 'law' requires something that ASSURES it "conforms". As such, Totality CAN create 'laws' from a prior state of 'no laws' because there is nothing preventing it FROM having consistent parts within it.

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

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

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:51 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:39 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:26 pm

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 ALL 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.
1. The assigning of a symbol to some aspect of reality observes the reverse as well given reality represents itself through symbols. Reality justifies symbols. Given the A=A implies the same time and two distinct things can occur at the same time, A=A is moot as it may equate to A=-A as well. An example of this is the moment of swallowing food, the food is both in position A and position B during this same moment as the moment encompasses a variety of movements.

Dually all points of change observe both A and -A (or B) simultaneously. This can be further observed in the state of potentiality where two different or opposing things exist at the same time. Potentiality is a time as potentiality exists within a duration of time; i.e.. A occurs, B and -B is the actual state of being potential (multiple conflicting states exist under the time span of potentiality). An example of this is Schrodinger's cat.

2. I am not speaking of binary options. The law of contradiction is not binary as both +P and -P share the same medial form of P. An example of this would be a square peg and a square hole equating through the square shape. In reference to the OP the third medial term would be "duration" or "point of change"; multiple phenomenon can occur during a duration while dually a point of change observes 2 elements occur at a single point.

3. I am not arguing for the existence of logic. Logic may require descrimination yet this discrimination first requires sameness thus P=P and P=-P. Where there is universal sameness there is nothing; I am arguing logic is nothing.
I added a note above that you didn't notice just as you posted. That's why it is doesn't indicate an 'edit'.

Maybe you are referencing Paraconsistency ideas? Technically, it would be the position that Totality as a whole doesn't even need RULES (given logic is just a formalized set of rules). To a specific Universe within Totality, some, like ours, ARE 'consistent' by some standard set of 'laws' though.

I argue this when I say that if Totality 'originates', it originates from absolutely nothing. In this way, Totality at that state LACKS rules such that there is no law against it breaking laws. A 'law' requires something that ASSURES it "conforms". As such, Totality CAN create 'laws' from a prior state of 'no laws' because there is nothing preventing it FROM having consistent parts within it.

Reobserve the above post as I edited it while you where making your argument. Well see if you agree to this:

1. Rules are facets of a totality and as facets exist as a part.

2. This particulation necessitates something beyond said part which is not said part (it's opposition).

3. The one part, relative to its opposite part, cancels out.

4. Thus there are no parts only a totality.

5. Rules are parts of reality as the opposition of said rules exists.

6. The totality observes both rules and no rules (opposition to said rules) thus is formless as rules are boundaries/limits/definition/etc.

7. Totality originates from nothing; rules come from nothing.

8. Rules coming from nothing necessitate an infinite variety of rules as the variety results from said indefiniteness. This indefiniteness is the absence of the rule mirroring itself (repeating) as it mirrors nothing (its source) thus resulting in an ambiguous multiplicity.

9. Rules paradoxically are indefinite as their existence and non-existence cancel each other out.

10. This indefiniteness of rules runs counter to definiteness in accords to this universal opposition, thus rules do exist just as the aforementioned particles must exist given the cancelation of said rules/particles exists; being is its own law and this law is grounded in nothingness ("no"-"thing" ness, ie an absence of form.)
Sculptor
Posts: 5295
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

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

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:20 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:08 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:05 pm

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.
Here is where you part from reality. They are not "AS ONE", you have said they are two and so they remain.

4. Two distinct phenomenon cannot exist at the same time in the law of non-contradiction yet point 3 argues the opposite.
How is this relevant?
The law of non contradiction does not say that.
The sun is a different phenomenon to the moon. We all understand the they may exist simultaneously without contradiction and the moon does not have to pop out of existence for the sun to shine.

You seem to be confusing empirical claims with logical ones. The law does not refer to phenomena but to premises in a logical argument.
Thanks for playing.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7782
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:28 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:20 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:08 pm
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.
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.
Here is where you part from reality. They are not "AS ONE", you have said they are two and so they remain.

4. Two distinct phenomenon cannot exist at the same time in the law of non-contradiction yet point 3 argues the opposite.
How is this relevant?
The law of non contradiction does not say that.
The sun is a different phenomenon to the moon. We all understand the they may exist simultaneously without contradiction and the moon does not have to pop out of existence for the sun to shine.

You seem to be confusing empirical claims with logical ones. The law does not refer to phenomena but to premises in a logical argument.
Thanks for playing.
How can I be confusing empirical claims with logical ones when the premise of the OP is grounded in empirical time?

1. I said the law of non contradiction is false not a contradiction, falsity is an absence of truth (ie the law of non-contradiction is not the fullest expression of truth); arguing P=-P is arguing for equivocation thus I am arguing for a truth.

2. Two lines can exist as one line; ._._.

3. Premises within a logical argument always reference a phenomenon whether empirical or imaginary thus are subject to the laws of the empirical or imaginary.

As to what the law of noncontradiction states:
"It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context". https://carm.org/dictionary/law-of-non-contradiction/. The duration of time is a context; it is a time within time. Both P and -P occur within the same instant and within the same duration, this instant/duration is context.
Sculptor
Posts: 5295
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

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

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:38 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:28 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:20 pm

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.
Here is where you part from reality. They are not "AS ONE", you have said they are two and so they remain.

4. Two distinct phenomenon cannot exist at the same time in the law of non-contradiction yet point 3 argues the opposite.
How is this relevant?
The law of non contradiction does not say that.
The sun is a different phenomenon to the moon. We all understand the they may exist simultaneously without contradiction and the moon does not have to pop out of existence for the sun to shine.

You seem to be confusing empirical claims with logical ones. The law does not refer to phenomena but to premises in a logical argument.
Thanks for playing.
How can I be confusing empirical claims with logical ones when the premise of the OP is grounded in empirical time?

1. I said the law of non contradiction is false not a contradiction, falsity is an absence of truth (ie the law of non-contradiction is not the fullest expression of truth); arguing P=-P is arguing for equivocation thus I am arguing for a truth.

2. Two lines can exist as one line; ._._.

3. Premises within a logical argument always reference a phenomenon whether empirical or imaginary thus are subject to the laws of the empirical or imaginary.

As to what the law of noncontradiction states:
"It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context". https://carm.org/dictionary/law-of-non-contradiction/. The duration of time is a context; it is a time within time. Both P and -P occur within the same instant and within the same duration, this instant/duration is context.
How can you be confusing logic with empiricism - well dah! you do that from the start. You cannnot run back to the OP with incredulity, when you have made your mistake from the outset.
SInce you mention the OP, lets look at 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.
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.

For a start it does not parse well - "Time is a duration thus along one timeline". This seems to be a sentence without a stop. It does not make sense alone or attached to the next bit of text. As for the next part of the sentence, that does not make sense alone or with the first part of the sentence. What do you think a "colour" is? You are climing it is two things, then two other things. What sense do you think this makes? Since yellow is a part of brown the two things cannot exist separately within one colour. Are you talking about pigment or light - since the phenomenon of colour is completely different for them. Pignements are additive whilst light is subtractive.
Now lets look at the next disconnected bt of text..
"You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration"
This is nothing more than a collection of tautological double speak. It does not mean anything.
The rest of your text presses on its misconceptions to higher absurdities.

Now to you bullet points.

1. If the law of non contradiction is false then, by logic, the existence of contradiction is necessary. In fact you can only prove the law of non contradiction false by demonstrating logical contradictions.
2.Two lines joined are one line, not two lines. If they are spearate they are two, together they are one. This, a five year old understands
3.No premises do not have to refer to any phenomenon, although they might. Premise 1+1=2 refers to two abstract things, and two operators.

This you have correct...The law of non contradiction; "It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context".
Please note what you have ignored THE SAME CONTEXT.
Logical arguments are made with clear definitions bound by clear parameters.
You empirical description, even if relevant is confused.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:39 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:26 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.
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 ALL 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.
1. There is no consistent rule of assigning a symbol to an object. I may observe 1 cow and attach 1 to it but 1 may equivocate to hamster, car, etc. In simple assigning one symbol may equate to a variety of phenomenon thus is subject to the fallacy of equivocation.
You gave an example of interpreting a variable as a constant. I used "address" and "value" (or "content in that address"). An address acts as the name of the variable that you can 'fill' in with multiple possibilities. This acts similar to what a contradiction stands for given it CAN hold more than one unique value. This address NAME is on the left and the VALUE is on the right. Position order matters unless said otherwise. So

"P = P" means that the left side symbol P has the ARBITRARY meaning to refer to the value on the right side P as its content or meaning, AT THE LEAST! [Assignment arbitrary]; But in the logic rules, the meaning of '=' is actually misleading and is "logically equivalent" (≡ is the usual symbol). So you are confusing the assignment meaning which references its content. That is, "P = P" can be "P = 93". This is an assignment that 'equates' the value to be the content meaning of "P" as an address.

Identity law is more properly,

P ≡ P

But when writing we assume the context and can forget this. So let's use the double equals (==) for (≡). Then the rule is

P == P

but

P = P would assign whatever it contains, even the name 'P' itself as just such a possibility.

Whatever something is, it represents the most PERFECT symbol (or model) of itself. So

P == P can be a way of saying that you can assign 'P' like this,
P = P, then add that this is also reversible. That is, if the Right side P is anything, its best representative of its meaning would be just itself. So P == P means that the literal 'P' will always at least represent itself, for whatever meaning it is given. The MEANING here stays CONSTANT.

A memory in the computer can have ROM (fixed memory data) that contains some fixed value, like zero or one. In RAM, these can be assigned constant which means that nothing in the running program could change it. ALL others are variable (can 'vary' in value or content).
2. "Some rule existing for that which is not the same always" is not always the same as the variables may equivocate to anything. Dually, I can argue "myself" is not the same to "myself" as there may be multiple selves; however the multiple selves equate as 1 self thus a contradiction occurs as there are both one and many selves.
You need to get a good book on set theory because you are missing out that they use the word, "equals" differently than "equivalent". "Equivalence" [equal valence] references sets that have the same number of content rather than mean that they are 'equal'. For instance,

{Scott, Eodnhoj7, 935.9, "Tah dah",} is 'equivalent' to {John, 305, 9, why?}. Scott is not 'equal' to John or any other concept in the other. It just contains the same NUMBER of variables. A single constant can be understood as {Scott} ≡ {P}.

If you understand this, it suffices to cover all possible logic systems, even paraconsistent, or relatively non-sense systems. [Where you can flip some meaning of something in a non-sense world arbitrarily, in our worlds, we DEFINE 'logic' to refer to the consistent systems.
3. "A rule that excludes all possible solutions by some standard" would have to require universal observation as not everything is observable. Not everything is observable and we know this because of change. A change occurs and what was once not observed is now observed therefore implying a non observed state existing beyond the current state. Because not everything is observable we cannot make any "all" statements.
The Axiomatic Set theory is normally taught after one gets familiar with the meanings of terms. Most of it is definitions of terms that need to be made 'comfortable' with before getting to the actual details. Your concern here is covered in the advanced Set theory studies. But here is one example: Normally even in math, there is an assumption of context that matters, not just the literal expressions. As such, the most general means of teaching universals like 'all' refers to some assumed universal set even where not mentioned. As such, a "-P", might better be expressed as "U - P", and means "given the Universe, U, without P; or the Complement in the set, 'U' of some 'P'.

Even if you think you understand by some particular book you may be using, it is best to look at multiple different authors of Set theory (or any subject) so that you can be sure to learn what one author may miss or explain things in different ways that might be more understanding. Either way, I believe that you need more study of what HAS been learned. You may think you are unique in understanding something on this but those before us have covered a lot of ground and are absurdly picky to be PRECISE and so do NOT miss your concerns. Much of it is just about communication misinterpretations.
4. The assigning of a symbol to some aspect of reality observes the reverse as well given reality represents itself through symbols. Reality justifies symbols. Given the A=A implies the same time and two distinct things can occur at the same time, A=A is moot as it may equate to A=-A as well. An example of this is the moment of swallowing food, the food is both in position A and position B during this same moment as the moment encompasses a variety of movements.

Dually all points of change observe both A and -A (or B) simultaneously. This can be further observed in the state of potentiality where two different or opposing things exist at the same time. Potentiality is a time as potentiality exists within a duration of time; i.e.. A occurs, B and -B is the actual state of being potential (multiple conflicting states exist under the time span of potentiality). An example of this is Schrodinger's cat.
If you need recommended particular books, let me know. But what you are speaking above is a multivalued logic. You can use the trinary, {0, 1, 2}. The "complement" is the maximum minus whatever is being complemented. For instance, -0 is 2; -2 = 0; -1 = 1. Any system greater than the binary (true/false) values LACKS the excluded middle rule and/or its complement.

So this too is covered in the formal systems BASED ON ONLY THOSE three general rule [the first two, Identity and Complement (or its 'contradiction' if binary). I can handle many valued logics personally but am still always learning more. But you should not think that Set theory has missed out on what you are particularly saying. The rules for multivalued systems do not overrule the binary systems. The whole binary systems have to be 'true' in order to define the latter systems. Given the binary system is also included in the multivalued systems, it still 'happens' to be true that when given only 2 values, P + -P is true and P*-P is false, the meanings of which 'true and false' themselves are defined IN necessarily.

[If you like the quantum theory issues, you should join in on discussions about the latest. Some of this is related with regards to reality and math/logic: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34156
5. I am not speaking of binary options. The law of contradiction is not binary as both +P and -P share the same medial form of P. An example of this would be a square peg and a square hole equating through the square shape. In reference to the OP the third medial term would be "duration" or "point of change"; multiple phenomenon can occur during a duration while dually a point of change observes 2 elements occur at a single point.
"Con-tra-diction" == with three/third dictum, other than the two exclusive options, "true" and "not-true". If you are wanting to use this in binary, it is not assigned outside of the two. Thus, if you get something as "true and false (of the same concept)", this third possibility is called the "contradiction" which demands we assign this as 'false' or the lowest value of the two values. So {0, 1} is limited to the "contradiction". The term was often meant in context to imply the emotional distaste of this with regards to truth values. As such, something that is NOT {0, 1}, like {0, 1, 2}, for instance, enables access to use 3 or more dimensions. Then the term, "contradiction" is no longer meaningful in those dimensions [Adding a value is 'dimensioning' in the same way a space is.]
6. I am not arguing for the existence of logic. Logic may require descrimination yet this discrimination first requires sameness thus P=P and P=-P. Where there is universal sameness there is nothing; I am arguing logic is nothing.
[my underlined for emphasis]

That last sentence is very ambiguous.

"Logic" comes from "log-related" as in something logged formally and analysed symbolically. They are the 'accountants' of the Greek times that combined their skill of record keeping and its means of using ONLY the symbols they can record to determine something from it about reality. The term "log" in math relates to this as they used the logs to multiply two numbers by turning them into something using logarithms. (log-arithm(etic) == use addition of the logs) [We probably get the English, "look" from this "log" or vice versa too.]

Logic is like a game that requires rules. The particular use of a game by players is what represents the 'contents' at the time of play. The 'conclusion' is the end of the game. What preceded it determined the "validity" of it as a fair game completed without difficulty. If there is a problem with the players at the particular game due to one of them NOT willing to follow the agreed-to rules, they should not play the game. Likewise, logic is like a very simplistic game with the least rules that can assign a token to each player. They really aren't so dumb as to confuse their 'equivalence' to the tokens as meaning they ARE the tokens! The tokens will have to represent the reality but the determination of the winner will require the players are the same way from the beginning. Then the winner becomes the conclusion, if all the rules were played, the token used that becomes a part of the conclusion refers to back to the reality where the game maps back to reality.

Logic does not require being 'true' of the whole. When the conclusion is based 'validly concluded', we mean the fitness within the confines of the game's rules are correct and IF we assume the inputs to the argument 'true', the conclusion the MUST be 'true'. That the conclusion when remapped to reality should be 'true' requires the logic being used is limited to a well-defined domain(s). When the argument is 'valid' AND 'true' using real referents assumed 'true', the argument is then, "sound". Think, "if everyone played and survived their game playing fair, they are 'sound' players and it was a sound game".

So logic doesn't have to be the 'reality' of Totality. But Totality DOES contain its right to adopt patterns of reality based upon consistent rules. We are a Universe within Totality that has patterns, even though Totality contains ALL that is true, false, true-and-false, etc.
Skepdick
Posts: 9106
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:19 am You gave an example of interpreting a variable as a constant. I used "address" and "value" (or "content in that address"). An address acts as the name of the variable that you can 'fill' in with multiple possibilities. This acts similar to what a contradiction stands for given it CAN hold more than one unique value. This address NAME is on the left and the VALUE is on the right. Position order matters unless said otherwise. So

"P = P" means that the left side symbol P has the ARBITRARY meaning to refer to the value on the right side P as its content or meaning, AT THE LEAST! [Assignment arbitrary]; But in the logic rules, the meaning of '=' is actually misleading and is "logically equivalent" (≡ is the usual symbol). So you are confusing the assignment meaning which references its content. That is, "P = P" can be "P = 93". This is an assignment that 'equates' the value to be the content meaning of "P" as an address.

Identity law is more properly,

P ≡ P

But when writing we assume the context and can forget this. So let's use the double equals (==) for (≡). Then the rule is

P == P

but

P = P would assign whatever it contains, even the name 'P' itself as just such a possibility.

Whatever something is, it represents the most PERFECT symbol (or model) of itself. So

P == P can be a way of saying that you can assign 'P' like this,
P = P, then add that this is also reversible. That is, if the Right side P is anything, its best representative of its meaning would be just itself. So P == P means that the literal 'P' will always at least represent itself, for whatever meaning it is given. The MEANING here stays CONSTANT.

A memory in the computer can have ROM (fixed memory data) that contains some fixed value, like zero or one. In RAM, these can be assigned constant which means that nothing in the running program could change it. ALL others are variable (can 'vary' in value or content).
Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.
fuck-identity.png (32.9 KiB) Viewed 424 times
Skepdick
Posts: 9106
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:19 am in our worlds, we DEFINE 'logic' to refer to the consistent systems.
That is factually bullshit.

Linear logic is paraconsistent.

http://nlab-pages.s3.us-east-2.amazonaw ... near_logic
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7782
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Sculptor wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:38 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:28 pm

Here is where you part from reality. They are not "AS ONE", you have said they are two and so they remain.

How is this relevant?
The law of non contradiction does not say that.
The sun is a different phenomenon to the moon. We all understand the they may exist simultaneously without contradiction and the moon does not have to pop out of existence for the sun to shine.

You seem to be confusing empirical claims with logical ones. The law does not refer to phenomena but to premises in a logical argument.
Thanks for playing.
How can I be confusing empirical claims with logical ones when the premise of the OP is grounded in empirical time?

1. I said the law of non contradiction is false not a contradiction, falsity is an absence of truth (ie the law of non-contradiction is not the fullest expression of truth); arguing P=-P is arguing for equivocation thus I am arguing for a truth.

2. Two lines can exist as one line; ._._.

3. Premises within a logical argument always reference a phenomenon whether empirical or imaginary thus are subject to the laws of the empirical or imaginary.

As to what the law of noncontradiction states:
"It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context". https://carm.org/dictionary/law-of-non-contradiction/. The duration of time is a context; it is a time within time. Both P and -P occur within the same instant and within the same duration, this instant/duration is context.
How can you be confusing logic with empiricism - well dah! you do that from the start. You cannnot run back to the OP with incredulity, when you have made your mistake from the outset.
SInce you mention the OP, lets look at 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.
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.

For a start it does not parse well - "Time is a duration thus along one timeline". This seems to be a sentence without a stop. It does not make sense alone or attached to the next bit of text. As for the next part of the sentence, that does not make sense alone or with the first part of the sentence. What do you think a "colour" is? You are climing it is two things, then two other things. What sense do you think this makes? Since yellow is a part of brown the two things cannot exist separately within one colour. Are you talking about pigment or light - since the phenomenon of colour is completely different for them. Pignements are additive whilst light is subtractive.
Now lets look at the next disconnected bt of text..
"You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration"
This is nothing more than a collection of tautological double speak. It does not mean anything.
The rest of your text presses on its misconceptions to higher absurdities.

Now to you bullet points.

1. If the law of non contradiction is false then, by logic, the existence of contradiction is necessary. In fact you can only prove the law of non contradiction false by demonstrating logical contradictions.
2.Two lines joined are one line, not two lines. If they are spearate they are two, together they are one. This, a five year old understands
3.No premises do not have to refer to any phenomenon, although they might. Premise 1+1=2 refers to two abstract things, and two operators.

This you have correct...The law of non contradiction; "It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context".
Please note what you have ignored THE SAME CONTEXT.
Logical arguments are made with clear definitions bound by clear parameters.
You empirical description, even if relevant is confused.
1. All propositions are grounded in empirical phenomenon, even an imaginary phenomenon is grounded in the convergence of two or more empirical phenomenon. As grounded in empirical phenomenon the law of logic are grounded in what is sensed.

2. Time is a duration thus along one duration (time line).....

3. If one color cannot exist without being part of another color then two different (opposing) things exist simultaneously as one. P, the color, and -P , the absence of P as another color, coexist. Color is inseparable from light.

4. All instances in time are durations of time as the instance, at the microscopic scale, is another duration of time.

5. If the law of noncontradiction is false then P=-P thus no contradiction exists, P=-P is an absence of contradiction. If P=/=-P is true then P=-P is a contradiction.

However another possibility remains if P=-P is true then P=/=-P can also be true as (=)=(=/=), equality equals non-equality as P would stand in for "equality" and -P for "non-equality". This would be saying both P and -P are both equal and unequal; (P=-P)=(P=/=-P). An example of this would be a square peg and a square hole both being equal as both are squares, yet no two empirical squares are completely equal thus a simultaneous inequality remains. All objects are both equal and unequal. This dualism thus necessitates the law of non-contradiction as both false and true, as false and true contradiction both exists and does not exist; relatively speaking P=-P observes where the absence of contradiction occurs, this focus on the absence of contradiction is where the argument is directed.

6. Two lines as one line observes two lines as one line thus both two lines and one line occur simultaneously, an example of this would be a line with a 0d point in the center; two lines occur as one line, one line occurs as two lines, both 1 line and 2 lines equate under the context of line. Dually 2 lines repeated is 1 line manifested in multiple states, these multiple states are the same line thus one line occurs.

7. 1+1=2 refers to forms and all forms are empirical. Even a number line is an empirical form. An abstract thing is still a thing and as a thing exists empirically as a symbol. Abstractions do not escape from an empirical nature.

8. Two things occuring in the same duration is two things occuring in the same context of time; time is a context. It would be like me saying two things occur simultaneously. An example of this would be saying "Judas hanged at x time" and "Judas did not hang at x time"; if Judas was standing on a stool with his toes planted while a rope hung around his neck holding up most of his weight he both hanged and not-hanged.
Sculptor
Posts: 5295
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

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

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:27 pm
1. All propositions are grounded in empirical phenomenon, even an imaginary phenomenon is grounded in the convergence of two or more empirical phenomenon. As grounded in empirical phenomenon the law of logic are grounded in what is sensed.
False.
Propositions can be purely a priori.

2. Time is a duration thus along one duration (time line).....
This is not coherent.

3. If one color cannot exist without being part of another color then two different (opposing) things exist simultaneously as one. P, the color, and -P , the absence of P as another color, coexist. Color is inseparable from light.
What do you think a colour is? There are no distinct colours as distinct from other colours. Colours are qualia, and are subjective representations of differences in the wavelengths of perceived light entering the eye. Spectrums are a brain state and not a true empirical representation.
Wavelengths are not atomistic or digital, wavelengths are analogue and the differences in tone between different wavelength are infinite in degree.

4. All instances in time are durations of time as the instance, at the microscopic scale, is another duration of time.
Again you seem to be stuck in some sort of atomistic assumption. There are no distinct divisions or units of time. THe units of time we use are wholly arbitrary, and time is also pure analogue infinitely divisible.

5. If the law of noncontradiction is false then P=-P thus no contradiction exists, P=-P is an absence of contradiction. If P=/=-P is true then P=-P is a contradiction.
This statement has no bearing on the foregoing statements.
You have not shown any contradiction. What you have shown is just a set of confused conceptions.
This is all that needs saying

However another possibility remains if P=-P is true then P=/=-P can also be true as (=)=(=/=), equality equals non-equality as P would stand in for "equality" and -P for "non-equality". This would be saying both P and -P are both equal and unequal; (P=-P)=(P=/=-P). An example of this would be a square peg and a square hole both being equal as both are squares, yet no two empirical squares are completely equal thus a simultaneous inequality remains. All objects are both equal and unequal. This dualism thus necessitates the law of non-contradiction as both false and true, as false and true contradiction both exists and does not exist; relatively speaking P=-P observes where the absence of contradiction occurs, this focus on the absence of contradiction is where the argument is directed.

6. Two lines as one line observes two lines as one line thus both two lines and one line occur simultaneously, an example of this would be a line with a 0d point in the center; two lines occur as one line, one line occurs as two lines, both 1 line and 2 lines equate under the context of line. Dually 2 lines repeated is 1 line manifested in multiple states, these multiple states are the same line thus one line occurs.

7. 1+1=2 refers to forms and all forms are empirical. Even a number line is an empirical form. An abstract thing is still a thing and as a thing exists empirically as a symbol. Abstractions do not escape from an empirical nature.

8. Two things occuring in the same duration is two things occuring in the same context of time; time is a context. It would be like me saying two things occur simultaneously. An example of this would be saying "Judas hanged at x time" and "Judas did not hang at x time"; if Judas was standing on a stool with his toes planted while a rope hung around his neck holding up most of his weight he both hanged and not-hanged.
Blah, blah, blah
Last edited by Sculptor on Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7782
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:19 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:39 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:26 pm

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 ALL 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.
1. There is no consistent rule of assigning a symbol to an object. I may observe 1 cow and attach 1 to it but 1 may equivocate to hamster, car, etc. In simple assigning one symbol may equate to a variety of phenomenon thus is subject to the fallacy of equivocation.
You gave an example of interpreting a variable as a constant. I used "address" and "value" (or "content in that address"). An address acts as the name of the variable that you can 'fill' in with multiple possibilities. This acts similar to what a contradiction stands for given it CAN hold more than one unique value. This address NAME is on the left and the VALUE is on the right. Position order matters unless said otherwise. So

"P = P" means that the left side symbol P has the ARBITRARY meaning to refer to the value on the right side P as its content or meaning, AT THE LEAST! [Assignment arbitrary]; But in the logic rules, the meaning of '=' is actually misleading and is "logically equivalent" (≡ is the usual symbol). So you are confusing the assignment meaning which references its content. That is, "P = P" can be "P = 93". This is an assignment that 'equates' the value to be the content meaning of "P" as an address.

Identity law is more properly,

P ≡ P

But when writing we assume the context and can forget this. So let's use the double equals (==) for (≡). Then the rule is

P == P

but

P = P would assign whatever it contains, even the name 'P' itself as just such a possibility.

Whatever something is, it represents the most PERFECT symbol (or model) of itself. So

P == P can be a way of saying that you can assign 'P' like this,
P = P, then add that this is also reversible. That is, if the Right side P is anything, its best representative of its meaning would be just itself. So P == P means that the literal 'P' will always at least represent itself, for whatever meaning it is given. The MEANING here stays CONSTANT.

A memory in the computer can have ROM (fixed memory data) that contains some fixed value, like zero or one. In RAM, these can be assigned constant which means that nothing in the running program could change it. ALL others are variable (can 'vary' in value or content).
2. "Some rule existing for that which is not the same always" is not always the same as the variables may equivocate to anything. Dually, I can argue "myself" is not the same to "myself" as there may be multiple selves; however the multiple selves equate as 1 self thus a contradiction occurs as there are both one and many selves.
You need to get a good book on set theory because you are missing out that they use the word, "equals" differently than "equivalent". "Equivalence" [equal valence] references sets that have the same number of content rather than mean that they are 'equal'. For instance,

{Scott, Eodnhoj7, 935.9, "Tah dah",} is 'equivalent' to {John, 305, 9, why?}. Scott is not 'equal' to John or any other concept in the other. It just contains the same NUMBER of variables. A single constant can be understood as {Scott} ≡ {P}.

If you understand this, it suffices to cover all possible logic systems, even paraconsistent, or relatively non-sense systems. [Where you can flip some meaning of something in a non-sense world arbitrarily, in our worlds, we DEFINE 'logic' to refer to the consistent systems.
3. "A rule that excludes all possible solutions by some standard" would have to require universal observation as not everything is observable. Not everything is observable and we know this because of change. A change occurs and what was once not observed is now observed therefore implying a non observed state existing beyond the current state. Because not everything is observable we cannot make any "all" statements.
The Axiomatic Set theory is normally taught after one gets familiar with the meanings of terms. Most of it is definitions of terms that need to be made 'comfortable' with before getting to the actual details. Your concern here is covered in the advanced Set theory studies. But here is one example: Normally even in math, there is an assumption of context that matters, not just the literal expressions. As such, the most general means of teaching universals like 'all' refers to some assumed universal set even where not mentioned. As such, a "-P", might better be expressed as "U - P", and means "given the Universe, U, without P; or the Complement in the set, 'U' of some 'P'.

Even if you think you understand by some particular book you may be using, it is best to look at multiple different authors of Set theory (or any subject) so that you can be sure to learn what one author may miss or explain things in different ways that might be more understanding. Either way, I believe that you need more study of what HAS been learned. You may think you are unique in understanding something on this but those before us have covered a lot of ground and are absurdly picky to be PRECISE and so do NOT miss your concerns. Much of it is just about communication misinterpretations.
4. The assigning of a symbol to some aspect of reality observes the reverse as well given reality represents itself through symbols. Reality justifies symbols. Given the A=A implies the same time and two distinct things can occur at the same time, A=A is moot as it may equate to A=-A as well. An example of this is the moment of swallowing food, the food is both in position A and position B during this same moment as the moment encompasses a variety of movements.

Dually all points of change observe both A and -A (or B) simultaneously. This can be further observed in the state of potentiality where two different or opposing things exist at the same time. Potentiality is a time as potentiality exists within a duration of time; i.e.. A occurs, B and -B is the actual state of being potential (multiple conflicting states exist under the time span of potentiality). An example of this is Schrodinger's cat.
If you need recommended particular books, let me know. But what you are speaking above is a multivalued logic. You can use the trinary, {0, 1, 2}. The "complement" is the maximum minus whatever is being complemented. For instance, -0 is 2; -2 = 0; -1 = 1. Any system greater than the binary (true/false) values LACKS the excluded middle rule and/or its complement.

So this too is covered in the formal systems BASED ON ONLY THOSE three general rule [the first two, Identity and Complement (or its 'contradiction' if binary). I can handle many valued logics personally but am still always learning more. But you should not think that Set theory has missed out on what you are particularly saying. The rules for multivalued systems do not overrule the binary systems. The whole binary systems have to be 'true' in order to define the latter systems. Given the binary system is also included in the multivalued systems, it still 'happens' to be true that when given only 2 values, P + -P is true and P*-P is false, the meanings of which 'true and false' themselves are defined IN necessarily.

[If you like the quantum theory issues, you should join in on discussions about the latest. Some of this is related with regards to reality and math/logic: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34156
5. I am not speaking of binary options. The law of contradiction is not binary as both +P and -P share the same medial form of P. An example of this would be a square peg and a square hole equating through the square shape. In reference to the OP the third medial term would be "duration" or "point of change"; multiple phenomenon can occur during a duration while dually a point of change observes 2 elements occur at a single point.
"Con-tra-diction" == with three/third dictum, other than the two exclusive options, "true" and "not-true". If you are wanting to use this in binary, it is not assigned outside of the two. Thus, if you get something as "true and false (of the same concept)", this third possibility is called the "contradiction" which demands we assign this as 'false' or the lowest value of the two values. So {0, 1} is limited to the "contradiction". The term was often meant in context to imply the emotional distaste of this with regards to truth values. As such, something that is NOT {0, 1}, like {0, 1, 2}, for instance, enables access to use 3 or more dimensions. Then the term, "contradiction" is no longer meaningful in those dimensions [Adding a value is 'dimensioning' in the same way a space is.]
6. I am not arguing for the existence of logic. Logic may require descrimination yet this discrimination first requires sameness thus P=P and P=-P. Where there is universal sameness there is nothing; I am arguing logic is nothing.
[my underlined for emphasis]

That last sentence is very ambiguous.

"Logic" comes from "log-related" as in something logged formally and analysed symbolically. They are the 'accountants' of the Greek times that combined their skill of record keeping and its means of using ONLY the symbols they can record to determine something from it about reality. The term "log" in math relates to this as they used the logs to multiply two numbers by turning them into something using logarithms. (log-arithm(etic) == use addition of the logs) [We probably get the English, "look" from this "log" or vice versa too.]

Logic is like a game that requires rules. The particular use of a game by players is what represents the 'contents' at the time of play. The 'conclusion' is the end of the game. What preceded it determined the "validity" of it as a fair game completed without difficulty. If there is a problem with the players at the particular game due to one of them NOT willing to follow the agreed-to rules, they should not play the game. Likewise, logic is like a very simplistic game with the least rules that can assign a token to each player. They really aren't so dumb as to confuse their 'equivalence' to the tokens as meaning they ARE the tokens! The tokens will have to represent the reality but the determination of the winner will require the players are the same way from the beginning. Then the winner becomes the conclusion, if all the rules were played, the token used that becomes a part of the conclusion refers to back to the reality where the game maps back to reality.

Logic does not require being 'true' of the whole. When the conclusion is based 'validly concluded', we mean the fitness within the confines of the game's rules are correct and IF we assume the inputs to the argument 'true', the conclusion the MUST be 'true'. That the conclusion when remapped to reality should be 'true' requires the logic being used is limited to a well-defined domain(s). When the argument is 'valid' AND 'true' using real referents assumed 'true', the argument is then, "sound". Think, "if everyone played and survived their game playing fair, they are 'sound' players and it was a sound game".

So logic doesn't have to be the 'reality' of Totality. But Totality DOES contain its right to adopt patterns of reality based upon consistent rules. We are a Universe within Totality that has patterns, even though Totality contains ALL that is true, false, true-and-false, etc.
1. "Logically equivalent" is not totally possible as the different positions of P necessitates multiple P's with multiple identities due to these multiple positions. "P" is best expressed as simply "P" not "P==P". Dually if "P" is best just expressed as "P" then "P==P" can mean "P==X" or "P==-P" given complete equality cannot occur therefore equality can only occur through underlying similarities.

2. I used the terms "equivocate" and "equate" not "equals". There is no such thing as complete equality in the empirical world, and abstraction are grounded in the empirical. Because there is no such thing as complete equality then equality can be observed between two or more distinct phenomenon.

3. If multiple authors of set theory exist then there are multiple interpretations. Given no two interpretations are completely equal, as complete equality does not exist empirically (and interpretations as exclamations of what is sensed are empirical), then no two authors completely agree on set theory.

4. No real disagreement with Point 4. However" Any system greater than the binary (true/false) values LACKS the excluded middle rule and/or its complement." therefore excluded middle is false in this context...ie it is not universally true.

5. Because truth values are not binary and a middle term occurs, the statement +P=-P is true given both +P and -P share P. As an example I stated elsewhere, both a square peg (+P) and a square hole (-P) both equate under the shared context of "square". They equate because of this middle context as complete equality does not occur, equality only occurs in grades. These grades are shared properties.

6. To assign a symbol is to equate a symbol to an object where both the symbol and object point to each other. This pointing of one to the other, and vice versa, is equality.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7782
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:42 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:27 pm
1. All propositions are grounded in empirical phenomenon, even an imaginary phenomenon is grounded in the convergence of two or more empirical phenomenon. As grounded in empirical phenomenon the law of logic are grounded in what is sensed.
False.
Propositions can be purely a priori.

2. Time is a duration thus along one duration (time line).....
This is not coherent.

3. If one color cannot exist without being part of another color then two different (opposing) things exist simultaneously as one. P, the color, and -P , the absence of P as another color, coexist. Color is inseparable from light.
What do you think a colour is? There are no distinct colours as distinct from other colours. Colours are qualia, and are subjective representations of differences in the wavelengths of perceived light entering the eye. Spectrums are a brain state and not a true empirical representation.
Wvelengths are not atomistic or digital, wavelengths are analogue and the differences in tone between different wavelength are infinite in degree.

4. All instances in time are durations of time as the instance, at the microscopic scale, is another duration of time.
Again you seem to be stuck in some sort of atomistic assumption. There are no distinct divisions or units of time. THe units of time we use are wholly arbitrary, and time is also pure analogue infinitely divisible.

5. If the law of noncontradiction is false then P=-P thus no contradiction exists, P=-P is an absence of contradiction. If P=/=-P is true then P=-P is a contradiction.
This statement has no bearing on the foregoing statements.
You have not shown any contradiction. What you have shown is just a set of confused conceptions.
This is all that needs saying

However another possibility remains if P=-P is true then P=/=-P can also be true as (=)=(=/=), equality equals non-equality as P would stand in for "equality" and -P for "non-equality". This would be saying both P and -P are both equal and unequal; (P=-P)=(P=/=-P). An example of this would be a square peg and a square hole both being equal as both are squares, yet no two empirical squares are completely equal thus a simultaneous inequality remains. All objects are both equal and unequal. This dualism thus necessitates the law of non-contradiction as both false and true, as false and true contradiction both exists and does not exist; relatively speaking P=-P observes where the absence of contradiction occurs, this focus on the absence of contradiction is where the argument is directed.

6. Two lines as one line observes two lines as one line thus both two lines and one line occur simultaneously, an example of this would be a line with a 0d point in the center; two lines occur as one line, one line occurs as two lines, both 1 line and 2 lines equate under the context of line. Dually 2 lines repeated is 1 line manifested in multiple states, these multiple states are the same line thus one line occurs.

7. 1+1=2 refers to forms and all forms are empirical. Even a number line is an empirical form. An abstract thing is still a thing and as a thing exists empirically as a symbol. Abstractions do not escape from an empirical nature.

8. Two things occuring in the same duration is two things occuring in the same context of time; time is a context. It would be like me saying two things occur simultaneously. An example of this would be saying "Judas hanged at x time" and "Judas did not hang at x time"; if Judas was standing on a stool with his toes planted while a rope hung around his neck holding up most of his weight he both hanged and not-hanged.
Blah, blah, blah
1. False, all that exists before the senses is non-sensical. All things have there grounded in empirical reality. Give an example of a strictly "a priori" proposition.

2. "Time is a duration thus along one duration" = "Time is a duration therefore x" with "Time is a duration" assuming implicitly " and y" as well. To say time is a duration is to say time is continuous as a duration is continuous. Any instance of time is a part of time itself thus subject to the nature of time. If time is a duration then any instance of time is a duration.

3. A color equates to a wavelength thus is objectively empirical and not subjective.

4. Time is not completely subjective as it is the relation of x and y within the context of z. Time is the relationship of particles moving within a larger particle; an example of this is the number of sand grains falling from a large sand pile; each grain of sand is a fraction of the pile. Time is the fractions of something proceeding from a larger whole; time is fractals.

5. Of course I did not show a contradiction if P=-P. You ignored the example of the square peg and the square hole.

6. Blah, Blah, blah is just an absence of a counterargument and where a counterargument does not occur then the argument stands.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7782
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Skepdick wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:05 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:19 am You gave an example of interpreting a variable as a constant. I used "address" and "value" (or "content in that address"). An address acts as the name of the variable that you can 'fill' in with multiple possibilities. This acts similar to what a contradiction stands for given it CAN hold more than one unique value. This address NAME is on the left and the VALUE is on the right. Position order matters unless said otherwise. So

"P = P" means that the left side symbol P has the ARBITRARY meaning to refer to the value on the right side P as its content or meaning, AT THE LEAST! [Assignment arbitrary]; But in the logic rules, the meaning of '=' is actually misleading and is "logically equivalent" (≡ is the usual symbol). So you are confusing the assignment meaning which references its content. That is, "P = P" can be "P = 93". This is an assignment that 'equates' the value to be the content meaning of "P" as an address.

Identity law is more properly,

P ≡ P

But when writing we assume the context and can forget this. So let's use the double equals (==) for (≡). Then the rule is

P == P

but

P = P would assign whatever it contains, even the name 'P' itself as just such a possibility.

Whatever something is, it represents the most PERFECT symbol (or model) of itself. So

P == P can be a way of saying that you can assign 'P' like this,
P = P, then add that this is also reversible. That is, if the Right side P is anything, its best representative of its meaning would be just itself. So P == P means that the literal 'P' will always at least represent itself, for whatever meaning it is given. The MEANING here stays CONSTANT.

A memory in the computer can have ROM (fixed memory data) that contains some fixed value, like zero or one. In RAM, these can be assigned constant which means that nothing in the running program could change it. ALL others are variable (can 'vary' in value or content).
Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.

fuck-identity.png
If P==P is false then P==-P can be observed as true as it necessitates total equality as bunk.
Sculptor
Posts: 5295
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

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

. If one color cannot exist without being part of another color then two different (opposing) things exist simultaneously as one. P, the color, and -P , the absence of P as another color, coexist. Color is inseparable from light.

This seems to reflect a complete misunderstanding of what colour is. It is both incoherent and confused
THe following spectrum wheel is based on a typical hexdecimal notation for all knowable colours from #255 - #000.
Any given source of light will have a point value at some distinct point on this wheel. Were two distinct light sources to join the effect would be additive since light is an energetic source.
This is distinct from mixing pigments or paints, as any artist will have noticed. When you to add say red and green, you do not get yellow as you do with light. Paint mixing adds density and is effectively subtractive tending to black. Light mixing is additive leading towards white.
This might be the source of your misconception.
specturm.JPG (21.43 KiB) Viewed 384 times