Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

[Speakpigeon]

Sure, and that why its's called "logic" and not quantum mechanics!

You don't use logic to express statements about the quantum world? Strange!

Non-sequitur. You'd need to learn logic.
I'm not a physicist so there's no reason I would discuss QM physics.
I can conceive that the logic of the human brain might not be enough to talk about QM meaningfully.
I have yet to see any example of that, though.
In fact, I'm dead certain there's no difficulty.
Although, there are plenty of idiots who may think there are.
So, if you have an example of QM that's problematic, I'm interested.

A temporal/quantum brain works with idealized concepts? You don't think you should change that?

Change the way the brain works?!
The way the brain works is the result of 525 million years of natural selection, at least.
Only idiots would want to downgrade to Logik's logic.

Why are you trying to make reality fit to your language?

I don't.
You're just delusional.

Why don't you adjust your language to fit reality?

That doesn't mean anything.
I use language to represent, describe, talk about reality.
And I'm using English here, which I had to learn as a foreign language. This shows I'm very flexible.

The universe is complicated.
Logic is simple. You use logic to talk about the universe. Problem?

No real problem, no. Tell me where there would be a problem.
We use logic but we also use mathematics, science, engineering, computer,s the arts, gestures, acts, etc.
However, the reason we're able to do all that is because of the logical capability of the human brain.

Because what I do IS logic/mathematics/physics/metaphysics.
It's the same damn thing.

Apples are oranges?
You change your language to make sure it doesn't fit reality.
EB

[Logik]

To try and prove Aristotelian logic wrong, you'd need understand it.

You haven't spent much time in your life breaking things, have you?
You just have to know where the weak spot of any system is. That's where you just need to prod and the whole house of cards comes crushing down.

In this case - I took away your axioms. SO what's left

Aristotelian logic exists since 2,400 years ago. All thinkers during this period have accepted it. You can also sample people, ordinary people without any formal logic training, and you'll see that they understand and accept all of Aristotelian logic, including the Law of Identity and the Law of non-contradiction.

Bandwagon fallacy. Who cares about adoption if it doesn't correspond to reality?

Besides, no mathematician, physicist or scientist I know gives a shit about Aristotelian logic in 2019.
It's useless.

[Speakpigeon]

Apples are Oranges apparently

You haven't proved anything about Aristotelian logic.
EB

Are two empty sets identical?

Define what's an "empty set".
That's not a logical problem until you have a proper understanding of what it is you're saying.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

To try and prove Aristotelian logic wrong, you'd need understand it.

You haven't spent much time in your life breaking things, have you?
You just have to know where the weak spot of any system is. That's where you just need to prod and the whole house of cards comes crushing down.

In this case - I took away your axioms. SO what's left

Aristotelian logic exists since 2,400 years ago. All thinkers during this period have accepted it. You can also sample people, ordinary people without any formal logic training, and you'll see that they understand and accept all of Aristotelian logic, including the Law of Identity and the Law of non-contradiction.

Bandwagon fallacy. Who cares about adoption if it doesn't correspond to reality?

Besides, no mathematician, physicist or scientist I know gives a shit about Aristotelian logic in 2019.
It's useless.

You haven't proved anything about Aristotelian logic.
EB

[Logik]

To try and prove Aristotelian logic wrong, you'd need understand it.

You haven't spent much time in your life breaking things, have you?
You just have to know where the weak spot of any system is. That's where you just need to prod and the whole house of cards comes crushing down.

In this case - I took away your axioms. SO what's left

Aristotelian logic exists since 2,400 years ago. All thinkers during this period have accepted it. You can also sample people, ordinary people without any formal logic training, and you'll see that they understand and accept all of Aristotelian logic, including the Law of Identity and the Law of non-contradiction.

Bandwagon fallacy. Who cares about adoption if it doesn't correspond to reality?

Besides, no mathematician, physicist or scientist I know gives a shit about Aristotelian logic in 2019.
It's useless.

You haven't proved anything about Aristotelian logic.
EB

Are you a parrot or a pigeon?

I am DISPROVING not proving.

Your axioms for one **POOF** vanished! Like the Abrahamic God

This is how science works. It cleans up shop....

[Logik]

Define what's an "empty set".
That's not a logical problem until you have a proper understanding of what it is you're saying.
EB

The CONCEPT of a banana, apple, pear or an orange. The ABSTRACT IDEA that exists in your head. Without containing any particular bananas, apples, pears or oranges!

When I talk about fruits ABSTRACTLY.

Apples are not oranges ( Apples != Oranges )
Pears are not Bananas ( Pears != Bananas)

You still want to tell me that your logic agrees with human intuition ?

https://repl.it/repls/IntentionalAmusedGoals

Do you want to keep playing this game? I know how to find ALL the edge cases in ZFC.

[Speakpigeon]

You haven't proved anything about Aristotelian logic.

I am DISPROVING not proving.

Prove it.
EB

[Logik]

You haven't proved anything about Aristotelian logic.

I am DISPROVING not proving.

Prove it.
EB

OK. Here: https://repl.it/repls/UrbanUniquePixels

This is a quantum effect manifesting at the classical level. It's empirical.

I have invented an object in space-time which behaves exactly contrary to what the LNC prescribes.

So if contradictions can and do exist in physical form, but logic prescribes that they don't then surely you need to go with empiricism on this one and discard the LNC?

[Speakpigeon]

Define what's an "empty set".
That's not a logical problem until you have a proper understanding of what it is you're saying.
EB

The CONCEPT of a banana, apple, pear or an orange. The ABSTRACT IDEA that exists in your head. Without containing any particular bananas, apples, pears or oranges!

When I talk about fruits ABSTRACTLY.

Apples are not oranges ( Apples != Oranges )
Pears are not Bananas ( Pears != Bananas)

You still want to tell me that your logic agrees with human intuition ?

https://repl.it/repls/IntentionalAmusedGoals

Do you want to keep playing this game? I know how to find ALL the edge cases in ZFC.

An empty set of bananas doesn't mean anything. That's human intuition.
EB

[Logik]

An empty set of bananas doesn't mean anything. That's human intuition.
EB

Yes! It is human intuition. And I can express this intuition in LOGIC!

We have been TALKING about the CONCEPTS of bananas, apples, pears and oranges in the abstract!
Are you seriously trying to convince me that "Bananas are not Apples" doesn't mean anything? It's a fact, for god's sake.

What LOGICAL CONSTRUCT pops into your mind when you speak about bananas and apples?

How do you express "Bananas" and "apples" in logic? If not an empty set what then?
How come when you are talking about ALL bananas it's a set, but when it's just bananas in general it's nothing?

How do you express "bananas are not apples" in logic?

[Scott Mayers]

Apples are Oranges apparently

You haven't proved anything about Aristotelian logic.
EB

Are two empty sets identical?

This reminds me of a quirk saying a friend of mine in the past used to ask to sound 'profound':

"What's the difference between an orange?"

[Logik]

"What's the difference between an orange?"

Well that's precisely why the law of identity is nonsense. It asks "what's the sameness between an orange?"

[surreptitious57]

When you can answer the question Who am I ? properly and correctly then the I is defined

What is the proper and correct way to answer the question Who am I ?
And how will I actually know that it is the proper and correct way ?

[Speakpigeon]

An empty set of bananas doesn't mean anything. That's human intuition.

Yes! It is human intuition. And I can express this intuition in LOGIC!

Who cares?

We have been TALKING about the CONCEPTS of bananas, apples, pears and oranges in the abstract!
Are you seriously trying to convince me that "Bananas are not Apples" doesn't mean anything? It's a fact, for god's sake.

???
Bananas are not apples... Where is the problem already?

What LOGICAL CONSTRUCT pops into your mind when you speak about bananas and apples?

All there is is an idea, the idea of bananas or the idea of apples. The idea of bananas is best described as an association of more basic ideas, like the mental visualisation of one or several bananas, perhaps the idea that it's a fruit, probably some idea as to the typical size of a banana etc.
You could think of that as the conjunction of several predicates. So?

How do you express "Bananas" and "apples" in logic? If not an empty set what then?

???
Why an empty set?
I definitely believe there are things in the world that are bananas as I think of them. Not only it's not an empty set but it's a set that contains all the bananas that exist, that have existed and that will exist. It's a lot of bananas. Nothing like an empty set.
So why an empty set according to you?

How come when you are talking about ALL bananas it's a set, but when it's just bananas in general it's nothing?

???
If I say that I like bananas, it's bananas in general, and it's not "nothing" and it's not an empty set.

How do you express "bananas are not apples" in logic?

I guess the following should be good enough:

∃xBx;
∃yAy;
∀a∀b(Aa ∧ Bb ∧ ¬(a = b)).

Any problem here?

Also, most people will believe there are bananas. Me too.
So, what does it mean to talk about bananas in the abstract?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

"What's the difference between an orange?"

There's no difference because there's no between.
EB