(0=0)=(1=1)

[Magnus Anderson]

I take it that you gave up.

[Skepdick]

I take it that you gave up.

Why do you say that?

I am following your lead.

[Magnus Anderson]

I am following your lead.

You've been arguing against the law of excluded middle.

The law of excluded middle says that "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is false".

You argued -- despite your claim that you didn't argue -- that the law of excluded middle is false by providing "This sentence is false" as a counter-example. That was your example of a proposition that is neither true nor false.

My response was that "This sentence is false" is NOT a proposition. I said that it is NOT a proposition because in order for something to be a proposition it must have a reference to a portion of reality (subject) and an idea as to what's inside that portion of reality (predicate.) "This sentence is false" lacks the former, and thus, the thing that is attached to it is NOT a proposition.

You responded by saying that the referred portion of reality in "This sentence is false" is "itself". I asked you to explain what that "itself" refers to. Does it refer to the symbol itself, the sequence of letters that is "T-h-i-s s-e-n-t-e-n-c-e i-s f-a-l-s-e", or does it refer to something else e.g. some sort of non-linguistic entity that is attached to the sentence? If it's referring to something else, what is that something else? You responded by asking "You don't know what the word "itself" means?" I responded by saying that I know what it means but that I want you to describe to us the thing your word is referring to. You're using a symbol to refer to something. That symbol is "itself". I want you to show us that your symbol is referring to something real -- something that exists. That's where you're currently at. That's your current task. The stage is yours.

You can say that "This sentence is false" refers to the symbol itself, the sequence of letters. That's perfectly fine. In that case, you have to note that you're saying that the sentence "This sentence is false" has a property called "truth value" and that the value of that property is "false". But does is it really have that property? How do we establish that? What does it mean for a sentence to have truth value? A sentence is said to have truth value if and only if a proposition is attached to it. But how do we know whether or not a proposition is attached to a sentence? A proposition is attached to a sentence if and only if what's attached to that sentence has the following two components: a reference to a portion of reality ("subject") and an idea as to what's inside that portion of reality ("predicate".) So if what's attached to the sentence "This sentence is false" is indeed a proposition, what portion of reality is it referring to? You can't say "itslef" because that would be running in circles. Because you can't identify the portion of reality the sentence is referring to, you are logically obligated to accept that the sentence is not a proposition and that because of that the law of excluded middle does not apply to it.

[Skepdick]

You've been arguing against the law of excluded middle.

OK. This is getting tiresome now. What will it take for you to actually understand and accept that I am not arguing?

I've said it how many times now. It's as literal as I can get. Why is it so difficult for you?

The law of excluded middle says that "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is false".

That's called an anthropomorphism. The law of excluded middle doesn't say anything. Humans say stuff.

You believe THAT for every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is false. Go ahead and justify your belief.

I don't subscribe to your variety of propositional logic! In my paradigm (which is much, much broader than your paradigm!) propositions are types; and the type of a proposition does not have to be a Boolean!

It may be the case that some propositions are Booleans, but that's not the case in general.

You argued -- despite your claim that you didn't argue -- that the law of excluded middle is false

No, I didn't. Refusing to believe in the the law of excluded middle doesn't mean it's false - it means I that I don't accept it! It means that I don't subscribe to it as a principle.

Of course, this will be difficult for you to understand because you seem like the kind of person whose brain shuts down once I take your words away from you.

You insist on using the terminology "arguing" despite the fact that I am not arguing.
You insist on using the terminology "true" and "false" despite the fact that logical principles are not "true" or "false". They are simply accepted or rejected. Which is synonymous with "believed" and "not believed".

by providing "This sentence is false" as a counter-example. That was your example of a proposition that is neither true nor false.

My response was that "This sentence is false" is NOT a proposition.

Nitpicker.

The law of excluded middle is neither true nor false.

Here is your proposition that is neither true nor false.

I am really really tired of having to explain this to you. I am USING intuitionistic logic. You are USING classical logic.

Why are you so desperately trying to force me to use your logic?

[Skepdick]

I am following your lead.

You've been arguing against the law of excluded middle.

The law of excluded middle says that "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is false".

Firstly, that's not true. The law of excluded middle is formulated as "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true".

Secondly. What is about to follow is NOT an argument! It is a direct empirical observation of a counter-example to the "law" according to which: either it's true that the ball is white; OR it's true that the ball is not white.

Now observe the damn ball!

It's neither true nor false that the ball is white AND it's neither true nor false that the ball is NOT white.

The "law" of excluded middle implies that the negation of a falsehood produces truth. It is very stupid, naive and harmful to think that way. Of course, idiots (who subscribe to classical logic and excluded middle) think exactly that way - they think proving other people wrong makes them right. That's Philosophy in a nutshell for you.

I refuse to participate on those terms - you refuse to reject excluded middle. Is there much more that we can say to each other except "Godspeed"?

[Magnus Anderson]

OK. This is getting tiresome now. What will it take for you to actually understand and accept that I am not arguing?

I've said it how many times now. It's as literal as I can get. Why is it so difficult for you?

You're now complaining about other people not bowing down to you. Ins't it ironic?

If you want to prove others wrong, you have to make a serious effort in that direction (sort of like what I am doing here in this thread which is tirelessly addressing your points.) If you want to prove me wrong, you have to first UNDERSTAND my claim. And once you do that, you have to PRESENT A CONVINCING ARGUMENT. You are pretty bad at both.

To argue against someone's claim means to make an effort to show that their claim is false. You tried arguing [yes, you did] that you're not trying to show that my claim is false merely that it is incomplete. And that's not true because if there is a single true non-belief then my claim "Only beliefs have truth value" is false (since my claim implies that there are no true non-beliefs.)

That's called an anthropomorphism. The law of excluded middle doesn't say anything. Humans say stuff.

What you're doing is called "Taking things too literally". Yes, the law isn't saying stuff in the literal sense of the word, and I am sure you know that, so why are you trying to make an issue out of that? This is one of the reasons you've got that "Extremely uncooperative, tries hard to disagree about everything" reputation.

I don't subscribe to your variety of propositional logic! In my paradigm (which is much, much broader than your paradigm!) propositions are types; and the type of a proposition does not have to be a Boolean!

It may be the case that some propositions are Booleans, but that's not the case in general.

Surprise surprise, the way you define words is irrelevant. Why? Because you're addressing other people's claims -- not yours. It is how OTHER people define their words that matters. Specifcally, what matters is the way the word "proposition" is defined in the statement "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true". Again, if you want to argue against a claim, which you very much do, despite your lack of self-awareness, you have to understand that claim. Imbuing it with your own definitions would be misunderstanding it.

No, I didn't. Refusing to believe in the the law of excluded middle doesn't mean it's false - it means I that I don't accept it! It means that I don't subscribe to it as a principle.

Well, if there's a single exception to the rule, the rule is false. You have found an exception, that exception "This sentence is false", which means the rule is false. Perhaps you don't want to derive that conclusion yourself (which would be an issue of yours) but that's pretty much what follows.

And that's actually irrelevant . . . the point is that you said that "This sentence is false" is an exception to the rule. And that's not true.

You insist on using the terminology "arguing" despite the fact that I am not arguing.

You very much do. It's called lack of self-awareness.

You insist on using the terminology "true" and "false" despite the fact that logical principles are not "true" or "false". They are simply accepted or rejected.

They are very much true or false.

The law of excluded middle is neither true nor false.

Not true at all.

I am really really tired of having to explain this to you. I am USING intuitionistic logic. You are USING classical logic.

You are using feminine logic a.k.a. illogic. You are a feminized male.

Why are you so desperately trying to force me to use your logic?

Yeah, why am I forcing you to grow a pair and be a man.

Firstly, that's not true. The law of excluded middle is formulated as "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true".

True.

What is about to follow is NOT an argument!

It is.

It's neither true nor false that the ball is white AND it's neither true nor false that the ball is NOT white.

So you decided to forget your existing counter-example . . . I guess it's too difficult to show us the portion of reality it refers to.

What does it mean for a ball to be white? You have to define that first. And you didn't do that so far (I am not surprised at all.) Balls are physical objects that consist of more than one part where each part has its own color. So you have to tell us what it means to speak of a color of a collection of parts. If it means "All parts are certain color", then the ball isn't white . . . it isn't white because it's not entirely white. If it means "Some parts are certain color", then the ball is white . . . it is white because some of its parts are indeed white. If it means "More than half of its parts are certain color", then the ball is not white because, as far as I can tell, it's more orange than it's white. If it means "The average color of its parts is certain color", then the ball is not white because the average color is some sort of light orange.

You are, once again, playing word games.

The "law" of excluded middle implies that the negation of a falsehood produces truth.

It does and it's true.

It is very stupid, naive and harmful to think that way.

The opposite is the case.

Of course, idiots (who subscribe to classical logic and excluded middle) think exactly that way - they think proving other people wrong makes them right.

If you prove another person's belief on some issue to be false, it does not necessarily follow that your own belief on that issue is true. The law of excluded middle has little to do with that since it concerns itself only with opposite, mutually-exclusive, beliefs.

[Skepdick]

OK. This is getting tiresome now. What will it take for you to actually understand and accept that I am not arguing?

I've said it how many times now. It's as literal as I can get. Why is it so difficult for you?

You're now complaining about other people not bowing down to you. Ins't it ironic?

Idiot. Is ssking you to stop misinterpreting my actions as "arguing" the same as bowing down to me?

If you are not interested in understanding then sure - I am <insert whatever fucking word you feel like here>.

If you want to prove others wrong

I don't! I am neither arguing; nor trying to prove you wrong!

I am only pursuing mutual understanding. Again... Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

, you have to make a serious effort in that direction (sort of like what I am doing here in this thread which is tirelessly addressing your points.) If you want to prove me wrong, you have to first UNDERSTAND my claim.

Fine! But if I don't want to prove you wrong (and I don't!), then I don't have to understand your claim. Right?

And once you do that, you have to PRESENT A CONVINCING ARGUMENT. You are pretty bad at both.

How does somebody who doesn't argue (me!) go about presenting a "convincing argument" exactly ?!?

In what language must I communicate to you the fact that I do not adhere to your protocols/customs for interaction and communication?

To argue against someone's claim means to make an effort to show that their claim is false.

Seeming as I neither argue, nor use your conceptuion of "truth" or "falsehood" - I don't see how that's going to happen.

"Truth" is a sufficient description for a particular purpose. And you haven't made any purpose; or criteria for sufficiency explicit!

You tried arguing [yes, you did] that you're not trying to show that my claim is false merely that it is incomplete. And that's not true because if there is a single true non-belief then my claim "Only beliefs have truth value" is false (since my claim implies that there are no true non-beliefs.)

Dude! You are way too fixated on what's true/false and not focused enough on effective communication and mutual understanding.

No, I am not arguing or trying to show that your claim is false.

You may believe that "only beliefs have truth value" but I don't. That doesn't mean that I believe that "only beliefs have truth value" is false! Because I don't use your notions of true/false!

But so what? Either you understand THAT I don't believe that "only beliefs have truth value" or you don't understand that.

What you're doing is called "Taking things too literally". Yes, the law isn't saying stuff in the literal sense of the word, and I am sure you know that, so why are you trying to make an issue out of that? This is one of the reasons you've got that "Extremely uncooperative, tries hard to disagree about everything" reputation.

I am "making an issue out of that" because a human (e.g NOT a law!) can SAY that "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true";

OR

Another human can SAY that "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is false".

And some other human can SAY that those are equivalent statements; and some other human can SAY that those are NOT equivalent statements.

Neither of those things are "laws"; or authorities of any kind for humans can say whatever the hell they want!

Surprise surprise, the way you define words is irrelevant. Why? Because you're addressing other people's claims -- not yours.

No, I am not. I am rejecting your claims, not addressing them.

It is how OTHER people define their words that matters.

I don't give a shit HOW you define your words if I don't know WHY you define your words.

For all I know we use a different definition for "understanding"; and I don't really care what your definition is untill you tell me WHY you want to "understand". What will "understanding" enable you to do that you are currently unable to do?

Specifcally, what matters is the way the word "proposition" is defined in the statement "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true". Again, if you want to argue against a claim, which you very much do, despite your lack of self-awareness, you have to understand that claim. Imbuing it with your own definitions would be misunderstanding it.

If we are talking cross-purposes misunderstanding is guaranteed either way.

You know... because "true" is a description (or if you want - definition) sufficient for a particular purpose.

Well, if there's a single exception to the rule, the rule is false.

That's not true. Rules don't have to be universally applicable. General applicability is sufficient. Contextual; or domain-specific applicability is sufficient also.

You understand the difference between contextually, generally and universally true; right?

You have found an exception, that exception "This sentence is false", which means the rule is false.

No, it doesn't. It only means that the rule is not universal. That doesn't mean the rule is not generally useful and it certainly doesn't mean that the rule is false.

A rule is only "false" if it can never be used.

Perhaps you don't want to derive that conclusion yourself (which would be an issue of yours) but that's pretty much what follows.

It only follows if you think in dichotomies. Which I don't.

And that's actually irrelevant . . . the point is that you said that "This sentence is false" is an exception to the rule. And that's not true.

Very well then, if it's not an exception to the rule then assign it a truth-value.

You insist on using the terminology "arguing" despite the fact that I am not arguing.

You very much do. It's called lack of self-awareness.

You are literally using a logic-system which doesn't allow for reflection and you want to preach to me about self-awareness?!? Classical logic literally lacks the ability to do introspection and you want to talk to me about self-awareness ?!?

You don't seem neither able nor capable of self-awareness or self-modification. You know - given your inability to correct your beliefs with respect to excluded middle.

They are very much true or false.

You are welcome to subscribe to that belief if it works for you, but it doesn't work for me.

The law of excluded middle is neither true nor false.

Not true at all.

Not true (at all) in your system.
True (oftne enough) in mine.

I am really really tired of having to explain this to you. I am USING intuitionistic logic. You are USING classical logic.

You are using feminine logic a.k.a. illogic. You are a feminized male.

Well, you know. If you are so insistent on binary classification then the least you can do is produce a complete classification rule which correctly classifies "males" and "females".

Of course, non-idiots understand that perfect binary classiffication is not possible in this universe.

Why are you so desperately trying to force me to use your logic?

Yeah, why am I forcing you to grow a pair and be a man.

I have a pair. And a penis. And the Y chromosome. And the wife. And the children. And I love tits, guns and beer. And I can beat my chest and proclaim my mucho masculinity. And swing my dick to prove it's bigger than yours!

Is that what makes me a "man"; or do you have some other definition in mind?

What is about to follow is NOT an argument!

It is.

I agree under protest.

It's neither true nor false that the ball is white AND it's neither true nor false that the ball is NOT white.

So you decided to forget your existing counter-example . . . I guess it's too difficult to show us the portion of reality it refers to.

I didn't forget my existing counter-example, but it was too higher-grade for you to handle it.

So I produced another counter-example - one that shouldn't tax your intellectual capacity as much.

What does it mean for a ball to be white? You have to define that first.

Jesus, fucking christ! Is this kindergarten?

What does it mean for this sentence to NOT be red?
What does it mean for this sentence to be neither red nor NOT red?
What does it mean for this sentence to be neither red nor NOT red?
What does it mean for this sentence to be neither red nor NOT red?
What does it mean for this sentence to be red?

And you didn't do that so far (I am not surprised at all.) Balls are physical objects that consist of more than one part where each part has its own color. So you have to tell us what it means to speak of a color of a collection of parts.

No, I don't. You fucking sophist. A ball is a ball is a ball. Whether it's a unit; or made up of infinitely many parts. The parts on the ball may be made of parts themselves. And those parts are made of parts. And those parts are made of parts.

So it's parts of parts of parts of parts of parts of parts. Do you want me to tell you about those also?

Would you like me to give you the quantum wave function for the ball also?

If it means "All parts are certain color", then the ball isn't white . . .

Ohhh. You want to play the stupid-pedant game? OK... Are you talking about paint color or light color?

Because if you are talking about the electromagnetic spectrum then all colors combined means "white".
But if you are talking about chemical paint then all colors combined means "black".

So do you want to define what it means for a part to be "certain color" ?
What do you mean by "certain" anyway?
What do you mean by "color"? Are gamma rays a color? They are all waves on the EM spectrum after all!

And what do you mean by "define"?

If it means "Some parts are certain color", then the ball is white . . . it is white because some of its parts are indeed white. If it means "More than half of its parts are certain color", then the ball is not white because, as far as I can tell, it's more orange than it's white. If it means "The average color of its parts is certain color", then the ball is not white because the average color is some sort of light orange.

You are, once again, playing word games.

I am playing word games?

Oh oh oh ! But did you know that there is no such color as "white" !

The "law" of excluded middle implies that the negation of a falsehood produces truth.

It does and it's true.

Sure. Please demonstrate how you get from The color of this sentence is blue. to The color of this sentence is red via negation? Is red the negation of blue or something?

It is very stupid, naive and harmful to think that way.

The opposite is the case.

I have no idea what "the opposite" refers to. Just like I have no idea what "the opposite of blue" refers to.

Of course, idiots (who subscribe to classical logic and excluded middle) think exactly that way - they think proving other people wrong makes them right.

If you prove another person's belief on some issue to be false, it does not necessarily follow that your own belief on that issue is true.

The law of excluded middle has little to do with that since it concerns itself only with opposite, mutually-exclusive, beliefs.

It has everything to do with that; and of course it follows!

If you believe P then anyone disagreeing with you necessarily believes not-P. What else could they believe in order to disagree?!?
So obviously if they prove P wrong then their proposition (not-P) must be right! Excluded middle necessitates it!

[Magnus Anderson]

It only means that the rule is not universal.

It's a universal rule. It says "For every proposition". It does not say "For some propositions" or "For most propositions". It says "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true". Therefore, if that rule does not apply to EVERY proposition, it's a false rule. That's what you're claiming. You're saying that the rule does not apply to every proposition because there are propositions that are neither true nor false. I am telling you that it does and that your counter-example "This sentence is false" is not a proposition. The only reason "This sentence is false" is neither true nor false is because it is not a proposition (in the same way that physical objects such as dogs aren't, and thus, are neither true nor false.)

A rule is only "false" if it can never be used.

Nah. That's not what the word "false" means. "False" does not mean "unusable".

It only follows if you think in dichotomies. Which I don't.

You refuse to understand that it follows because you have this irrational hatred of binary classification. You are basically refusing to deal with it in any way, shape or form. It makes it difficult for you to cooperate with others. But it's also a handicap for you -- it makes you dumb.

Binary classification, like classfication of any arity other than 2, is a tool that is useful in certain situations and useless in others. It's not a proposition, so it has no truth value; it makes no sense to say that it's true or that it's false. It's really only a method -- a method for classifying things; how can a method be true or false? It can't be. How you're going to classify things -- i.e. how many classes you're going to use and what rules you will use to determine what thing goes where -- is determined by your needs. So sometimes, you will use binary classification; binary classification involves 2 classes. At other times, you will use centesimal classification; centesimal classification involves 100 classes. If all you want to know is whether something is completely true or not completely true, you will use binary classification as you really only need 2 classes: "true" and "not true" (= "false".) If you want to know the degree to which something is true, not merely whether it's completely true or not, you may use centesimal classification: 0% true, 1% true, 2% true, ..., 100% true. All in all, you have a poor understanding of what classification is and you confuse binary classification with the logical fallacy known as "false dichotomy". They are unrelated -- except in some superficial ways -- and your brain is seeing a connection that does not really exist between the two.

Very well then, if it's not an exception to the rule then assign it a truth-value.

It's not a proposition, so I can't assign it a truth value. But note that the law of excluded middle only talks about proposition. It's not talking about any kind of thing. It says 'For every proposition". It does not say "For every thing".

Is that what makes me a "man"

You have a feminine mind. Perhaps you enjoy pretending to be a female, I don't know. Or maybe you actually feel like one -- a homosexual one? I don't know. But either way, your mind is feminized.

I didn't forget my existing counter-example, but it was too higher-grade for you to handle it.

I wasn't asking for a different counter-example. I was asking for you to show us the referred portion of reality in "This sentence is false". Doesn't matter how higher-grade it is for me to handle it.

Jesus, fucking christ! Is this kindergarten?

So you're not going to provide a definition? I am not surprised.

No, I don't.

You very much do. Otherwise, your counter-example is pointless because I can;t tell you whether your statement "This ball is white" is a proposition or not; and if it's a proposition, whether it's true or false.

I have a feeling that you actually don't really understand what definitions are, how they work. You can always prove us wrong by demonstrating your knowledge but I highly doubt it you will do such a thing.

You want to play the stupid-pedant game?

Nah. That's your cup of tea. I am just trying to tell you that whether or not your statement is true depends on the meaning you assigned it. So without telling us what that meaning is, I can't say much about your statement.

Are you talking about paint color or light color?

Because if you are talking about the electromagnetic spectrum then all colors combined means "white".
But if you are talking about chemical paint then all colors combined means "black".

So do you want to define what it means for a part to be "certain color" ?
What do you mean by "certain" anyway?
What do you mean by "color"? Are gamma rays a color? They are all waves on the EM spectrum after all!

And what do you mean by "define"?

You are the one who should provide the definition. Not me. It's your statement, not mine.

But if you're going to play dumb by intentionally asking dumb, pointless, questions, then fine; but in that case, let it be known that Skepdick has given up discussing these things.

But did you know that there is no such color as "white" !

There is.

Please demonstrate how you get from The color of this sentence is blue. to The color of this sentence is red via negation? Is red the negation of blue or something?

Given your tendency to arbitrarily define words such as "red" and "blue", I am not going to be answering this question until you define them first.

It has everything to do with that; and of course it follows!

If you believe P then anyone disagreeing with you necessarily believes not-P. What else could they believe in order to disagree?!?
So obviously if they prove P wrong then their proposition (not-P) must be right! Excluded middle necessitates it!

Let me try to explain. Suppose you believe P. Suppose that P is "Joe Biden has two heads". Suppose that a friend of yours has proven you wrong i.e. that he's demonstrated that P is false. According to the law of excluded middle, it follows that your friend is obliged to believe not-P. And that's true. However, the law of excluded middle does not say or otherwise imply that what your friend believes on that particular issue is true. For example, if your friend believes Q and Q is "Joe Biden has three heads", the law of excluded middle does not say or otherwise imply that Q is true. It merely says that not-P is true. Your friend has merely proven that not-P is true and not-P in this case is "Joe Biden does not have two heads". He has NOT proven that his own claim, which is "Joe Biden has three heads", is true. That's all I said. Thankyouverymuch.

[Skepdick]

It only means that the rule is not universal.

It's a universal rule. It says "For every proposition". It does not say "For some propositions" or "For most propositions". It says "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true". Therefore, if that rule does not apply to EVERY proposition, it's a false rule. That's what you're claiming.

"It" doesn't say anything. You defined it that way. You defined it for "every" proposition a priori of having personally examined "every" proposition and you later learned that your scope is too broad.

I don't give a shit what assertions you make about the "truth" or "falsity" of your definitions; as long as you recalibrate their scope based on new evidence.

Demonstrate that you are capable of learning/adapting/self-improving as new information arrives. Even if it means that you have to slaughter your sacred cows. Be a fucking scientist!

Unless you wish to confess that your rules are not subject to empirical revision?
Unless you want to confess to being a universal authority on rules.

You're saying that the rule does not apply to every proposition because there are propositions that are neither true nor false.

No!!!

I am saying that the rule applies to every proposition, except the propositions it fails to apply to!

I am telling you that it does ...

So you do think yourself to be an authority on rules? The ruler of universal rules! God himself! The fucking hubris that your rules apply to my propositions! Have you considered the possibility that you have an ego problem?

Your insistence that your "rules" apply universally doesn't really change the fact that you didn't account for uncovering exceptions in future.
Your rule was unfalsifiable! Not even wrong.

Reality decides, not you. Right ?!? Be a fucking scientist and make your logic empirical/self-evolving! If your ego allows it.

and that your counter-example "This sentence is false" is not a proposition.

Of course it is! I am the one who expressed it - and I expressed a proposition. Just because you can't recognise it for what it is doesn't mean it isn't what it is. The part of reality the proposition refers to is the truth-value of the belief that "This sentence is false".

But since you are struggling with abstract reasoning let me rewrite it (in a manner which preserves its meaning): I propose that I believe that this sentence (which expresses a proposition; and belief) is false.

It's a proposition AND a belief about a portion of reality! It satisfies all of your criteria, and yet you can't assign it a truth-value. So strange!

Next you are going to tell me that the sentence "The color of this sentence is blue." is not a definition of "blue".

The only reason "This sentence is false" is neither true nor false is because it is not a proposition

That's not true. The reason that the proposition is neither true nor false is because not all propositions are decidable.

Surely you have heard of the halting problem; and Godel's incompleteness theorems? The implication follows directly.

If every proposition was decidable, then you can solve the halting problem
If you can solve the halting problem, then you can solve all 6 Millenium Prize problems and claim your $6 million dollars.

(in the same way that physical objects such as dogs aren't, and thus, are neither true nor false.)

Idiot. The expression "Dog" when coupled with a referent is always a proposition!

Dog:
But because you are stupid I'll rewrite it for you as "I propose that this is a dog: "

Dog:
But because you are stupid I'll rewrite it for you as "I propose that this is a dog: "

You keep missing the damn point about proposition which combine the referer and referent into one in the form of self-reference!
RED:█

But because you are stupid I'll rewrite it for you as "I propose that this is color is red: █"

And I'll rewrite it again (while preserving its meaning): RED

A rule is only "false" if it can never be used.

Nah. That's not what the word "false" means. "False" does not mean "unusable".

Then understand it via its synonyms.

Never applicable. Universally inapplicable. Void in all contexts. Never needed. Purposeless. Unusable. Unnecessary. Redundant. Superfluous.

That's how I am using "false" as an adjective for characterising rules.

You refuse to understand that it follows because you have this irrational hatred of binary classification.

I don't have an "irrational hatred" of binary classification. I just don't subscribe to it universally.

I don't aspire to categorize the uncategorizable universe.

You are basically refusing to deal with it in any way, shape or form.

That's not true. I am only "refusing to deal with it" as a universal.

I am happy to use any form of classification in the context of a particular pragmatic goal.

Some classification-schemes are fit for purpose. Some aren't. What is it that you are trying to classify and why?

It makes it difficult for you to cooperate with others. But it's also a handicap for you -- it makes you dumb.

That description fits you much better than it fits me.

When I sit at the metaphorical "classification table" I don't bring any pre-existing categories to the party - I start without prejudice on how to classify the universe. The collective goal determines the necessary classification scheme - not me.

I will hapilly negotiate all categories as part of the discourse. Can't say the same about you...

Binary classification, like classfication of any arity other than 2, is a tool that is useful in certain situations and useless in others.

Precisely. Even you agree that it's not universal!

So why do you keep bringing the categories/prejudices of "true" and "false" to the classification table?!?

It's not a proposition, so it has no truth value; it makes no sense to say that it's true or that it's false.

Only Boolean propositions that have truth-values. Not all propositions are Boolean. Non-boolean propositions can have other values.

Of course, if the only logic you understand is classical logic - none of this will make any sense to you.

It's really only a method -- a method for classifying things; how can a method be true or false? It can't be. How you're going to classify things -- i.e. how many classes you're going to use and what rules you will use to determine what thing goes where -- is determined by your needs. So sometimes, you will use binary classification; binary classification involves 2 classes. At other times, you will use centesimal classification; centesimal classification involves 100 classes. If all you want to know is whether something is completely true or not completely true, you will use binary classification as you really only need 2 classes: "true" and "not true" (= "false".) If you want to know the degree to which something is true, not merely whether it's completely true or not, you may use centesimal classification: 0% true, 1% true, 2% true, ..., 100% true. All in all, you have a poor understanding of what classification is and you confuse binary classification with the logical fallacy known as "false dichotomy". They are unrelated -- except in some superficial ways -- and your brain is seeing a connection that does not really exist between the two.

Thanks for the unnecessary explanation. Have you heard of the concept of a subobject classifier?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subobject_classifier
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/subobject+classifier

It's a general account for all classifiers. Even those which work with infinite number of categories.

Very well then, if it's not an exception to the rule then assign it a truth-value.

It's not a proposition, so I can't assign it a truth value. But note that the law of excluded middle only talks about proposition.

It is a proposition; and yet the "law" does not apply.

Is that what makes me a "man"

You have a feminine mind. Perhaps you enjoy pretending to be a female, I don't know. Or maybe you actually feel like one -- a homosexual one? I don't know. But either way, your mind is feminized.

I have a mind. Not sure why you think it has a gender. Perhaps you are willing to present us with your gender-classification rule for minds?

Won't hold my breath.

I didn't forget my existing counter-example, but it was too higher-grade for you to handle it.

I wasn't asking for a different counter-example. I was asking for you to show us the referred portion of reality in "This sentence is false". Doesn't matter how higher-grade it is for me to handle it.

I took a screenshot and highlighted the refered portion of reality for you. Because the idea of "the sentence itself' is too higher grade for you to handle.

sentence.png (6.93 KiB) Viewed 1630 times

Jesus, fucking christ! Is this kindergarten?

So you're not going to provide a definition? I am not surprised.

So you are not going to provide a definition for "definition"?

I am not surprised either.

No, I don't.

You very much do. Otherwise, your counter-example is pointless because I can;t tell you whether your statement "This ball is white" is a proposition or not; and if it's a proposition, whether it's true or false.

AHHHHHHH! No wonder we are misscommunicating. You fucking idiot.

You aren't supposed to tell whether it's a proposition! You are supposed to hear, listen and understand THAT it's a proposition. I am the one doing the telling.

You aren't supposed to tell whether it's true or false! You are supposed to hear, listen and understand THAT it's true, false or undecidable. I am doing the telling.

I have a feeling that you actually don't really understand what definitions are, how they work.

I have a feeling you should look in the mirror. You can't even define "define" because the entire paradigm of self-definition is completely foreign to you!

Mean while, I've tried to explain to you how self-reference/recursion works... It doesn't seem like computer science; or programming language theory is your thing.

You can always prove us wrong by demonstrating your knowledge but I highly doubt it you will do such a thing.

I've been demonstrating it all along. Perhaps you weren't paying attention?

Here is a relevant part for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory

Computability theory, also known as recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic, computer science, and the theory of computation that originated in the 1930s with the study of computable functions and Turing degrees. The field has since expanded to include the study of generalized computability and definability.

It's almost as if computer science deals with the general notiona of definability and recursion; or something.
And it's almost as if I know that by asking you to define "define".

You want to play the stupid-pedant game?

Nah. That's your cup of tea. I am just trying to tell you that whether or not your statement is true depends on the meaning you assigned it.

And I am trying to tell you that the meaning I assugn to my statements is "true". In a boolean setting.

So without telling us what that meaning is, I can't say much about your statement.

Yes. Because you aren't supposed to tell. You are supposed to listen and understand my statements.

You are the one who should provide the definition. Not me. It's your statement, not mine.

I defined it ostensively. Did you miss the definition?

But did you know that there is no such color as "white" !

There is.

Sometimes there is, and sometimes there isn't. It depends on the domain of discourse. In ontological theories of truth (such as Classical logic) there is no ontological referent for "white" so correspondence (and therefore - truth about "whiteness") is not possible.

But, of course you probably won't believe me when I say that so... please locate the correspondent for "white" on the visible spectrum and identify it by its wavelength. Thanks!

Given your tendency to arbitrarily define words such as "red" and "blue", I am not going to be answering this question until you define them first.

I thought you said it's about the correspondence between concepts and reality?
I thought you said that the symbols are arbitrary?

Let me paraphrase the question so you don't trip up over the red/blue terminology.

Is the negation of this color materially equivalent to this color?
If P is this color which color is not-P?

It has everything to do with that; and of course it follows!

If you believe P then anyone disagreeing with you necessarily believes not-P. What else could they believe in order to disagree?!?
So obviously if they prove P wrong then their proposition (not-P) must be right! Excluded middle necessitates it!

Let me try to explain.

You keep trying to "explain" things you don't even understand to people who know much more than you. No wonder terms like "mansplaining" have gained popular use!

Suppose you believe P. Suppose that P is "Joe Biden has two heads". Suppose that a friend of yours has proven you wrong i.e. that he's demonstrated that P is false.

Lets suppose.

According to the law of excluded middle, it follows that your friend is obliged to believe not-P. And that's true.

Yes that's precisely what my friend believes!!!

2 is not a boolean, it's a number! The negation of a number implies ALL other numbers, except that number.
The negation of 2 implies all numbers except 2!

So it's true that Joe Biden has 1 head; AND it's true that Joe Biden has 3 heads; AND it's true that Joe Biden has 4 heads... ad infinitum.

My friend believes that Joe Biden has ANY number of heads except 2. He is right.
You believe that Joe Biden has 2 heads. You are wrong.

However, the law of excluded middle does not say or otherwise imply that what your friend believes on that particular issue is true.

For example, if your friend believes Q and Q is "Joe Biden has three heads", the law of excluded middle does not say or otherwise imply that Q is true.

It merely says that not-P is true. Your friend has merely proven that not-P is true and not-P in this case is "Joe Biden does not have two heads". He has NOT proven that his own claim, which is "Joe Biden has three heads", is true. That's all I said. Thankyouverymuch.

So you don't even understand how your own "law" works?!? Why am I even surprised? You probably have no clue what a proof is either.

Assuming that Joe Biden has any number of heads whatsoever; "Joe Biden has two heads" is a ultimately a proposition about that number.
The sentence can be trivially rewritten (without altering its meaning) as "I propose that 2 is the number of heads Joe Biden has."
Another meaning-preserving rewrite: "I propose that 2 represents the number of Joe Biden's heads".
We can reduce the above to "I propose that the number in question is 2" e.g the proposition P is equivalent to the number 2.

(1) P ⇔ 2
(2) Excluded middle: P ∨ not(P) ⇔ ⊤
Substitute (1) into (2): 2 ∨ not(2) ⇔ ⊤

Since we know that 2 is false then not(2) must be true: ( (P ⇔ 2) ⇔ ⊥ ) ⇒ (not(2) ⇔ ⊤)

It's true that Joe Biden does not have 2 heads!

3 is not(2). Therefore 3 is true. It's true that Joe Biden has 3 heads!
7 is not(2), Therefore 7 is true. It's true that Joe Biden has 7 heads!
...
6525174512736123 is not(2), Therefore 6525174512736123 is true. It's true that Joe Biden has 6525174512736123 heads!
...

The above can be generalized as: "Any number that is not 2 is the true number of heads" e.g ∀x, (x ∈ N) ∧ (x <> 2) ⇒ x ⇔ ⊤

How many heads does Joe Biden have? Well, 2 is false but any other number is true!

Thanks excluded middle, but that is NOT fucking useful towards identifying the actual number of heads.

[Magnus Anderson]

No!!!

I am saying that the rule applies to every proposition, except the propositions it fails to apply to!

You're contradicting yourself.

If it applies to every proposition, there are no propositions it fails to apply to.

You really have a serious -- a really, really serious -- problem with language.

Reality decides, not you. Right ?!? Be a fucking scientist and make your logic empirical/self-evolving! If your ego allows it.

Given how feminized your mind is, you are the last person on Earth to lecture anyone on how to be a scientist.

Of course it is! I am the one who expressed it - and I expressed a proposition.

Show us the portion of reality it refers to.

The part of reality the proposition refers to is the truth-value of the belief that "This sentence is false".

Okay. It refers to the truth value of the belief attached to the sentence "This sentence is false". But what portion of reality does that attached belief refer to?

No circular answers are allowed.

It satisfies all of your criteria

It does not.

Next you are going to tell me that the sentence "The color of this sentence is blue." is not a definition of "blue".

You have yet to learn what the word "definition" means.

Idiot. The expression "Dog" when coupled with a referent is always a proposition!

YOU are an idiot. I wasn't talking about the expression "Dog". And even THAT expression is not a proposition on its own. You have to combine it with other things in order to turn it into a proposition. "That thing right there is a dog" would be a proposition. Saying "Dog" while pointing with your finger at some physical object would be a proposition. But the word "Dog" on its own is NOT a proposition (and thus it has no truth value.) But I wasn't even talking about the expression "Dog". I was talking about dogs qua animals. I wasn't talking about symbols. I was talking about living beings. Again, YOU DON'T LISTEN. You just MINDLESSLY CRITICIZE while pretending you're not criticizing at all.

That's not true. I am only "refusing to deal with it" as a universal.

I am happy to use any form of classification in the context of a particular pragmatic goal.

Some classification-schemes are fit for purpose. Some aren't. What is it that you are trying to classify and why?

You have to stop talking about yourself and seriously consider the possibility that you are extremely blind to your own deficiencies.

Precisely. Even you agree that it's not universal!

You are confusing binary classification (a method, something that has NO truth value) with the law of excluded middle (a proposition, something that DOES have truth value.) Two different things. The latter is universal in the sense that it says something that is TRUE about ALL propositions. The former is not universal in the sense that it's not the most useful method in every situation. Again, you have a serious issue with language. You are utterly incapable of understanding what other people are saying. And again, instead of you responding in a defensive, narcissistic "I am so great" manner, you would do well to listen and ask questions.

So why do you keep bringing the categories/prejudices of "true" and "false" to the classification table?!?

They are not prejudices.

Only Boolean propositions that have truth-values. Not all propositions are Boolean. Non-boolean propositions can have other values.

All propositions have truth value. By definition. And there are no such things as "boolean" and "non-boolean" propositions. There are really only boolean and non-boolean methods of classifying the truth value of propositions. Classification is entirely about 1) taking a set of things, 2) inventing a number of classes, and 3) placing each thing in one and only one of the classes by following certain classification rules. Classes are human inventions and so are classification rules. You can have ANY number of classes and you can classify things ANY way you want. The only guide is utility. Truth value, on the other hand, is a relation between the referred portion of reality and the idea about what's inside that portion of reality. It's the extent to which the idea about what's inside the referred portion of reality is similar to what's actually inside that portion of reality. How many different truth valeus there are depends on the size of the referred portion of reality. The greater the referred portion of reality, the greater the number of possible truth values. "True" and "false" are commonly used classes for classifying truth values. "True" is used for truth values where what's inside the referred portion of reality completely matches, is completely similar to, what's said to be inside it. "False" is a class used for all other truth values.

I took a screenshot and highlighted the refered portion of reality for you. Because the idea of "the sentence itself' is too higher grade for you to handle.

So the referred portion of reality is a linguistic entity, a sentence, a sequence of letters, that is "This sentence is false"? Is that what you're saying? If so, the following applies:

You can say that "This sentence is false" refers to the symbol itself, the sequence of letters. That's perfectly fine. In that case, you have to note that you're saying that the sentence "This sentence is false" has a property called "truth value" and that the value of that property is "false". But does is it really have that property? How do we establish that? What does it mean for a sentence to have truth value? A sentence is said to have truth value if and only if a proposition is attached to it. But how do we know whether or not a proposition is attached to a sentence? A proposition is attached to a sentence if and only if what's attached to that sentence has the following two components: a reference to a portion of reality ("subject") and an idea as to what's inside that portion of reality ("predicate".) So if what's attached to the sentence "This sentence is false" is indeed a proposition, what portion of reality is it referring to? You can't say "itslef" because that would be running in circles. Because you can't identify the portion of reality the sentence is referring to, you are logically obligated to accept that the sentence is not a proposition and that because of that the law of excluded middle does not apply to it.

Feel free to respond to the above.

So you are not going to provide a definition for "definition"?

You don't know what the word "definition" means? Or maybe you're not sure how I'm using it? Or perhaps you're just playing dumb? Or maybe you're just testing my knowledge because you're insecure and you want to prove to yourself you are better than me? Either way, I'm using it the way most people use it. A definition is no more than a verbal or non-verbal description of what some term means. So what does it mean for a ball to be white?

You aren't supposed to tell whether it's a proposition!

I am. The law of excluded middle only applies to propositions. If it's not a proposition, it has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle.

You are supposed to hear, listen and understand THAT it's a proposition. I am the one doing the telling.

You mean, I am supposed to bow down to your declarations? I am not allowed to think for myself? Quite interesting.

I have a feeling you should look in the mirror. You can't even define "define" because the entire paradigm of self-definition is completely foreign to you!

I have a feeling you presume too much.

Mean while, I've tried to explain to you how self-reference/recursion works... It doesn't seem like computer science; or programming language theory is your thing.

Maybe you should learn about how two-way communication works. I can see you're more into one-way communication where you talk and everyone else listens.

I've been demonstrating it all along. Perhaps you weren't paying attention?

Here is a relevant part for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory

Quoting Wikipedia isn't demonstrating.

But, of course you probably won't believe me when I say that so... please locate the correspondent for "white" on the visible spectrum and identify it by its wavelength. Thanks!

There's a white piece of paper in front of me. End of story. You can be a pathetic snob as much as you like trying to impress others with your knowledge but at the end of the day you're just a moron who has ingested all sorts of crap that he never really understood properly.

You are the one who said "The ball is white". Explain to us what you're saying. Explain to us what it means for a ball to be white. Either you can do that or you can't. If you can't, it's game over. Your counter-example is at being pointless and at worst a meaningless sentence (and hence, not a proposition.)

Let me paraphrase the question so you don't trip up over the red/blue terminology.

Is the negation of this color materially equivalent to this color?
If P is this color which color is not-P?

No and it has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle.

You keep trying to "explain" things you don't even understand to people who know much more than you. No wonder terms like "mansplaining" have gained popular use!

So you must be a feminist.

2 is not a boolean, it's a number! The negation of a number implies ALL other numbers, except that number.
The negation of 2 implies all numbers except 2!

So it's true that Joe Biden has 1 head; AND it's true that Joe Biden has 3 heads; AND it's true that Joe Biden has 4 heads... ad infinitum.

Nah, that's your misunderstanding of the law of excluded middle.

The opposite of "Joe Biden has 2 heads" is "Joe Biden does not have 2 heads".

The opposite is not "Joe Biden has 1 head and Joe Biden has 3 heads and Joe Biden has 4 heads and so on ad infinitum".

So you don't even understand how your own "law" works?!? Why am I even surprised? You probably have no clue what a proof is either.

Nah, you're the one misunderstanding it. You misunderstand everything.

It's true that Joe Biden does not have 2 heads!

That's what follows, yes.

3 is not(2). Therefore 3 is true. It's true that Joe Biden has 3 heads!
7 is not(2), Therefore 7 is true. It's true that Joe Biden has 7 heads!
...
6525174512736123 is not(2), Therefore 6525174512736123 is true. It's true that Joe Biden has 6525174512736123 heads!
...

The above can be generalized as: "Any number that is not 2 is the true number of heads" e.g ∀x, (x ∈ N) ∧ (x <> 2) ⇒ x ⇔ ⊤

How many heads does Joe Biden have? Well, 2 is false but any other number is true!

Thanks excluded middle, but that is NOT fucking useful towards identifying the actual number of heads.

But none of the above actually follows. You made an elementary mistake. You're not free to substitute "Not 2" with "3". The two symbols do not have one and the same meaning. Thus, no substitution can take place. It's like someone saying "Joe Biden is a human" and you concluding "Joe Biden is Donald Trump" merely because Donald Trump is also s human. A slightly better analogy would be someone saying "Joe Biden is not an animal" and then you concluding that "Joe Biden is Donald Trump" because Trump is not an animal either. This has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle. It has to do with you deducing incorrectly.

[Skepdick]

You're contradicting yourself.

If it applies to every proposition, there are no propositions it fails to apply to.

"It applies to every proposition, there are no propositions it fails to apply to." is an a priori statement.

"It applies to every proposition, EXCEPT the propositions it fails to apply to." is an a posteriori statement.

It's not a contradiction - it's a paradox. You need a few extra brain cells to resolve it without your head exploding.

You really have a serious -- a really, really serious -- problem with language.

Me?!? You seem the one confused about the sentence "It applies to every proposition, EXCEPT the propositions it fails to apply to."

Reality decides, not you. Right ?!? Be a fucking scientist and make your logic empirical/self-evolving! If your ego allows it.

Given how feminized your mind is, you are the last person on Earth to lecture anyone on how to be a scientist.

Are you actually suggesting that science is only for male minds? That sounds pretty fucking sexist.

Surely you can't believe that gender has a causal relation with scientific prowess?

Of course it is! I am the one who expressed it - and I expressed a proposition.

Show us the portion of reality it refers to.

How many fucking times do you want me to show you the sentence "This sentce is false." ?!?! I even took a screenshot for you, circled it and everything!

Do you have any mental disabilities that I should know about?

The part of reality the proposition refers to is the truth-value of the belief that "This sentence is false".

Okay. It refers to the truth value of the belief attached to the sentence "This sentence is false". But what portion of reality does that attached belief refer to?

No circular answers are allowed.

OK, so I'll give you a recursive answer, not a circular one. It refers to itself!

Why is self-reference so difficult for you?

It satisfies all of your criteria

It does not.

Of course it does. Which criterion is unsatisfied?

Next you are going to tell me that the sentence "The color of this sentence is blue." is not a definition of "blue".

You have yet to learn what the word "definition" means.

You have to learn what the word "you" means. Because I don't need to learn what "definition" means - I will just demonstrate how definition works.

The sentence "The color of this sentence is blue." assigns this color to the term "blue".
And now the term "blue" means this color!

That IS how definitions work.

Idiot. The expression "Dog" when coupled with a referent is always a proposition!

YOU are an idiot. I wasn't talking about the expression "Dog". And even THAT expression is not a proposition on its own. You have to combine it with other things in order to turn it into a proposition.

Which is why I combined it with a referent!

DOG:

Saying "Dog" while pointing with your finger at some physical object would be a proposition.

That is precisely what I am doing!!!!

DOG --------->

That's not true. I am only "refusing to deal with it" as a universal.

I am happy to use any form of classification in the context of a particular pragmatic goal.

Some classification-schemes are fit for purpose. Some aren't. What is it that you are trying to classify and why?

You have to stop talking about yourself and seriously consider the possibility that you are extremely blind to your own deficiencies.

I am NOT talking about myself. I am talking about YOU!

WHY do you want to classify anything? At this moment, in this conversation what is the purpose of your classifications?

Precisely. Even you agree that it's not universal!

You are confusing binary classification (a method, something that has NO truth value) with the law of excluded middle (a proposition, something that DOES have truth value.) Two different things.

No, I am not. Excluded middle is a form of binary classification. It sorts things into two categories: true and false.

Other binary classifications might sort things into red and blue. Square and circular. Male and female. Etc etc.

What the categories contain is immaterial. What matters is that there are TWO of them - hence binary classification.

The latter is universal in the sense that it says something that is TRUE about ALL propositions.

No it doesn't. It says absolutely nothing about non-Boolean propositions.

The former is not universal in the sense that it's not the most useful method in every situation. Again, you have a serious issue with language. You are utterly incapable of understanding what other people are saying. And again, instead of you responding in a defensive, narcissistic "I am so great" manner, you would do well to listen and ask questions.

Idiot. I understand everything you are saying. And I disagree! I used to think exactly like you.

I don't need to ask you any questions - I used to subscribe to Classical logic. That is WHY I rejected it.

It was a deliberate choice.

So why do you keep bringing the categories/prejudices of "true" and "false" to the classification table?!?

They are not prejudices.

They are. All categories are prejudices of the mind.

Nature doesn't come in categories.

Only Boolean propositions that have truth-values. Not all propositions are Boolean. Non-boolean propositions can have other values.

All propositions have truth value. By definition.

What is it that you are struggling to comprehend here? Only all Boolean propositions have truth-value. Non-boolean propositions have other values.

A proposition is a type: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/propositions+as+types

Boolean-types are not the only types.

And there are no such things as "boolean" and "non-boolean" propositions. There are really only boolean and non-boolean methods of classifying the truth value of propositions.

Not in the logic I am using. Type theory.

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/propositions+as+types

Classification is entirely about 1) taking a set of things

Who says we are dealing with sets?!?

In type theory we deal with TYPES. https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/type

All sets are types, but not all types are sets.

You can have ANY number of classes and you can classify things ANY way you want. The only guide is utility. Truth value, on the other hand,

Why do you say "on the other hand"!?!? Why is truth-value an exception to the utility rule? Why do you classify things as "true" and "false" ?

So the referred portion of reality is a linguistic entity, a sentence, a sequence of letters, that is "This sentence is false"? Is that what you're saying? If so, the following applies:

You can say that "This sentence is false" refers to the symbol itself, the sequence of letters. That's perfectly fine. In that case, you have to note that you're saying that the sentence "This sentence is false" has a property called "truth value" and that the value of that property is "false". But does is it really have that property?

The sentence represents a belief. Beliefs have truth value (your words). So why wouldn't a linguistic representation of a belief have truth-value?

A proposition is attached to a sentence if and only if what's attached to that sentence has the following two components: a reference to a portion of reality ("subject") and an idea as to what's inside that portion of reality ("predicate".) So if what's attached to the sentence "This sentence is false" is indeed a proposition, what portion of reality is it referring to? You can't say "itslef" because that would be running in circles.

Of course I can say it!?!? If person can make assertions about themselves - why can't a sentence make assertions about itself ?!?

Because you can't identify the portion of reality the sentence is referring to, you are logically obligated to accept that the sentence is not a proposition and that because of that the law of excluded middle does not apply to it.

I can identify it! The sentence is refering to itself!!!!

What portion of reality am I refering to when I assert things about myself? MYSELF!

So you are not going to provide a definition for "definition"?

You don't know what the word "definition" means? Or maybe you're not sure how I'm using it? Or perhaps you're just playing dumb? Or maybe you're just testing my knowledge because you're insecure and you want to prove to yourself you are better than me? Either way, I'm using it the way most people use it. A definition is no more than a verbal or non-verbal description of what some term means.

Oh no! A circular definition! What does the term "definition" mean? Define the meaning of "definition"!

You aren't supposed to tell whether it's a proposition!

I am. The law of excluded middle only applies to propositions. If it's not a proposition, it has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle.

Non-sequitur. It is a proposition. I should bloody well know what it is - I created the sentence!

You mean, I am supposed to bow down to your declarations? I am not allowed to think for myself? Quite interesting.

You can think all you want. The information required to make the detmination is NOT in your head - it's in my head.

I created the sentence - not you. It is a proposition by design. If your thinking arrives at any other conclusion then your thinking is necessarily wrong.
It happens when you are reasoning with incomplete information.

I have a feeling you should look in the mirror. You can't even define "define" because the entire paradigm of self-definition is completely foreign to you!

I have a feeling you presume too much.

I have a feeling I presume just the right amount.

Maybe you should learn about how two-way communication works.

I know how it works. There's even a Mathematical theory of communication. Refer to Shannon. 1948.

I can see you're more into one-way communication where you talk and everyone else listens.

No, I am not. I am waiting for you to complete synchronization.

I've been demonstrating it all along. Perhaps you weren't paying attention?

Here is a relevant part for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory

Quoting Wikipedia isn't demonstrating.

I know. Demonstrating is demonstrating. But all the demonstrations appear to go above your head.

So I am giving you material that's closer to your level of comprehension.

There's a white piece of paper in front of me. End of story.

Shouldn't you justify that belief? I am sure there's a piece of paper in front of you, but what makes you believe it's white if there is no such color in the spectrum.

You can be a pathetic snob as much as you like trying to impress others with your knowledge but at the end of the day you're just a moron who has ingested all sorts of crap that he never really understood properly.

You don't even understand what it means to understand.

You are the one who said "The ball is white". Explain to us what you're saying. Explain to us what it means for a ball to be white.

Sure... Soon as you explain to me what an "explanation" is.

Either you can do that or you can't. If you can't, it's game over.

Either you can explain what an "explanation" is, or it's game over.

Your counter-example is at being pointless and at worst a meaningless sentence (and hence, not a proposition.)

To use your own criterion for meaning: Take the set of all colors and take only the white one.

That's how you deduce "white".

No and it has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle.

It has everything to do with negation. What does it mean to negate a proposition about a color; or a number?

You keep trying to "explain" things you don't even understand to people who know much more than you. No wonder terms like "mansplaining" have gained popular use!

So you must be a feminist.

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. I am merely observing that you are "explaining" things you don't understand to people who do.

Other people use the word "mansplaining" to describe that behaviour. I don't.

Nah, that's your misunderstanding of the law of excluded middle.

The opposite of "Joe Biden has 2 heads" is "Joe Biden does not have 2 heads".

That can't be the "opposite". In the one statement you are expressing a concrete number, in the other statement you are expressing an counter-factual.

That's a type error in my logic. The negation of a number is not a counter-factual.

The opposite is not "Joe Biden has 1 head and Joe Biden has 3 heads and Joe Biden has 4 heads and so on ad infinitum".

Of course it is! The opposite of 2 is ALL numers except 2.

But none of the above actually follows. You made an elementary mistake. You're not free to substitute "Not 2" with "3".

Of course I am! EVERY number is either 2 or not 2! P or not P.

Welcome to excluded middle.

The two symbols do not have one and the same meaning.

They do thanks to excluded middle. It's true that every number is either 2 or not 2!

1 is not 2
2 is 2
3 is not 2
4 is not 2
...

Thus, no substitution can take place. It's like someone saying "Joe Biden is a human" and you concluding "Joe Biden is Donald Trump" merely because Donald Trump is also s human.

Wat? That's not what I am doing.

A slightly better analogy would be someone saying "Joe Biden is not an animal"

No, a better analogy would be someone saying "Joe Biden is either a tree; or not a tree".

Obviously he is not a tree.

And so he could be a cat! Because a cat is not a tree!
Or he could be a horse. because a horse is not a tree!

and then you concluding that "Joe Biden is Donald Trump" because Trump is not an animal either.

Idiot. You seem completely unable to distinguish between terms and types.

"Joe Biden" is a term. The type of the term is NOT animal.

Saying Joe Biden is not an animal can't possibly imply that Joe Biden is Donald Trump

Because Donald Trump is an animal, but Joe Biden is NOT an animal! The terms have different types - you are comparing apples to oranges!

This has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle. It has to do with you deducing incorrectly.

My deduction is just fine. It's yours that's broken.

[Magnus Anderson]

Are you actually suggesting that science is only for male minds?

Proper science is a masculine endeavour. But jobs are created by those at the top. And if they have a need for pseudo-science, e.g. for political reasons, they will create such jobs, hire those who are best suited for them (i.e. women, considering that women are far more willing to follow instructions), tell them they are scientists and everyone else they are sexists if they dare to say that science is a masculine endeavour.

The sentence "The color of this sentence is blue." assigns this color to the term "blue"

In standard English, that sentence wouldn't count as definition because definitions are propositions where the referred portion of reality is the meaning of some word. The referred portion of reality in the above sentence is the color of that sentence. A definition would be something like "The word 'red' is defined as the color of this sentence". A subtle but important difference.

Which is why I combined it with a referent!

Noone gives a shit.

That is precisely what I am doing!!!!

Noone gives a shit.

Excluded middle is a form of binary classification.

It isn't. It's a proposition. Binary classification is a method. Methods and propositions are two different things.

Not in the logic I am using.

And noone gives a shit. We're talking about the law of excludded middle here. We're not talking about whatever the fuck you want to talk about.

In type theory we deal with TYPES

Who gives a shit? Can you be more irrelevant?

The sentence represents a belief. Beliefs have truth value (your words). So why wouldn't a linguistic representation of a belief have truth-value?

Because no belief is actually attached to the sentence.

Of course I can say it!?!?

You can't. That's like someone asking "Who is John?" and someone else answering "It's John!"

If person can make assertions about themselves - why can't a sentence make assertions about itself ?!?

You presume too much. Noone said that a sentence cannot make assertions about itself. I even made it clear a number of times in this thread. Obviously, you don't read. And if you do read, you don't listen.

Here, let me remind you:

It's so strange that you can assign a truth-value to a sentence which is grammatically and semantically identical to "This sentence is false".

It appears strange to you because you don't realize that "The color of this sentence is black" is a sentence with a belief attached to it whereas "This sentence is false" is a sentence with no belief attached to it.

Self-reference must be really confusing for you.

It is not. "This sentence is black" is an example of a self-referential sentence that I am perfectly fine with.

So why the double standard? Why are you not fine with "This sentence is false."

Why are you fine with the color-property, but not the truth-property of the sentence?

There is no double standard. And I already explained why I am not fine with "This sentence is false". It has no belief attached to it, and hence, no truth value.

"This sentence is black" has color property. "This sentence has false" has no truth value (since it has no belief attached to it.)

The issue is not whether it has a truth-vlaue. The issue is whether it has a truth-property.

Your last argument sort of agreed with mine. You admitted that it has no truth value (since the statement is neither true nor false) so you tried arguing that it has truth property and that it's the presencen of a truth property that makes something a proposition. But that's your own invention, you see. As I've told you before, you can define words any way you like . . . but when dealing with other people's claims, you have to understand how THEY define their terms. And the definition of the word "proposition" as used in the law of excluded middle is not the same as yours.

What portion of reality am I refering to when I assert things about myself? MYSELF!

Yes, but if I asked you to tell me how to locate you, you'd be able to do so and I'd be able to find you. In the case of the portion of reality that the belief attached to "This sentence is false" refers, you are not capable of doing that. You can merely say "It refers itself!" That's circular. That would be like me asking "Where are you?" and you answering with "I am where I am". It's dumb.

Oh no! A circular definition! What does the term "definition" mean? Define the meaning of "definition"!

Didn't I? And what's your obsession with the word "definition"?

I should bloody well know what it is - I created the sentence!

That's how self-conceited people think . . . they think they know all about themselves. Whatever they say about themselves must be true. There is no way in hell someone can have a skewed perception of themselves. But most importantly, you didn't really create the sentence . . . you just used it. It's actually a well known sentence. Totally not your creation.

It is a proposition by design.

If it is, show us the portion of reality the attached belief refers to. Don't just make empty assetions. "I said it therefore it's true!" Can you be more egocentric than that?

I know how it works.

You're seriously blind to how much of a wreck you are.

So I am giving you material that's closer to your level of comprehension.

I didn't ask for that material. You can stick it up your arse.

Shouldn't you justify that belief? I am sure there's a piece of paper in front of you, but what makes you believe it's white if there is no such color in the spectrum.

The fact that white is not a spectral color is totally irrelevant.

Sure... Soon as you explain to me what an "explanation" is.

So you're going to avoid providing one by pretending you don't know what the word "explanation" means?

That's a type error in my logic.

Who gives a shit about YOUR logic?

The opposite of 2 is ALL numers except 2.

The opposite of "2" is "Not 2". "Not 2" isn't "Every number except 2". It's "A number other than 2". That number can be 1, it can be 3, it can be 4 and so on; but it can never be all of those numbers at the same time.

Wat? That's not what I am doing.

That's EXACTLY what you're doing merely blind to it.

No, a better analogy would be someone saying "Joe Biden is either a tree; or not a tree".

Obviously he is not a tree.

And so he could be a cat! Because a cat is not a tree!
Or he could be a horse. because a horse is not a tree!

An awful analogy.

Your reasoning started with "The number of heads Joe Biden has is not 2" and went something like this:

1) Because "1" is "not 2", the number of heads Joe Biden has is 1.
2) Because "3" is "not 2", the number of heads Joe Biden has is 3.
3) Because "4" is "not 2", the number of heads Joe Biden has is 4.
etc.

That's analogous to someone starting with "Trump is not a president" and then concluding the following:

1) Because George Bush is not a president, Trump is Bush
2) Because Obama is not a president, Trump is Obama
3) Because Nancy Pelosi is not a president, Trump is Nancy
4) Because AOC is not a president, Trump is AOC
5) Because Skepdick is not a president, Trump is Skepdick
6) Because horses aren't presidents, Trump is every single one of those horses
etc

It's called bad logic. You're making an elementary, kindergarten, mistake. If you are not Trump that does not mean you are every single person who's also not Trump. It's embarrassing, but fortunately for you, you have developed a set of very strong defensive mechanisms to protect yourself from embarrassment.

[Skepdick]

Proper science is a masculine endeavour. But jobs are created by those at the top. And if they have a need for pseudo-science, e.g. for political reasons, they will create such jobs, hire those who are best suited for them (i.e. women, considering that women are far more willing to follow instructions), tell them they are scientists and everyone else they are sexists if they dare to say that science is a masculine endeavour.

What makes a science "propper"? And what is it that you think makes it a "masculine endeavour" ?

Surely "propper science" is "propper science" irrespective of who does it! I mean look at us - you are masculine, I am masculine but you are totally shit at "proper science". Peraps you would actually improve at "proper science" if you acquired some feminine traits? Who knows?

In standard English

Standard English? Is there a standards body for the English lannguage or something? Where is it? Who appointed them?

I never thought there could be such a thing as an authority on language.

that sentence wouldn't count as definition because definitions are propositions where the referred portion of reality is the meaning of some word. The referred portion of reality in the above sentence is the color of that sentence. A definition would be something like "The word 'red' is defined as the color of this sentence". A subtle but important difference.

You are using different words to say the same thing I did. The activities produce the exact same result/outcome!

When everything is said and done the meaning of "blue" becomes this color.

Which is why I combined it with a referent!

Noone gives a shit.

Speak for yourself. I am not "noone".

That is precisely what I am doing!!!!

Noone gives a shit.

Speak for yourself. I am not "noone".

Excluded middle is a form of binary classification.

It isn't. It's a proposition. Binary classification is a method. Methods and propositions are two different things.

What is the difference? You are classifying the truth-value of propositions as either true; or false.

Not in the logic I am using.

And noone gives a shit.

Speak for yourself. I am not "noone".

We're talking about the law of excludded middle here. We're not talking about whatever the fuck you want to talk about.

That's what I am talking about also! The "law" of excluded middle can be introduced into any logic. Universally, OR contextually.

In type theory we deal with TYPES

Who gives a shit? Can you be more irrelevant?

Both of us give a shit! YOU want to talk about propositions in context of the "law" of excluded middle!

That's precisely what I am talking about! I am USING Type Theory to talk about propositions in context of the "law" of excluded middle!. BECAUSE Propositions ARE Types!!!

So no. I can't be more relevant.

Using type theory to talk about types (a.k.a propositions) is as relevant as I know how to be.
Do you know how to be more relevant?

The sentence represents a belief. Beliefs have truth value (your words). So why wouldn't a linguistic representation of a belief have truth-value?

Because no belief is actually attached to the sentence.

Of course there is a belief "actually attached"!!! That is literally what it means for a sentence to represent a belief!

Of course I can say it!?!?

You can't. That's like someone asking "Who is John?" and someone else answering "It's John!"

Yes! It's exactly like saying "Who am I?". I AM ME! ALL of me is me!

If you don't like the answer then maybe your question is poorly worded. Do you even know what you are asking with the question "Who is John?"
What sort of answer do you expect to such an open-ended question? A finger-pointing? A photo? A social graph? John's life story? A psychological profile of John? A deep insightinto John's life philosophy, motivations and values?

What is it that you want to know about John when you ask such a vague question about complex humans?

If person can make assertions about themselves - why can't a sentence make assertions about itself ?!?

You presume too much. Noone said that a sentence cannot make assertions about itself. I even made it clear a number of times in this thread. Obviously, you don't read. And if you do read, you don't listen.

Here, let me remind you:

It's so strange that you can assign a truth-value to a sentence which is grammatically and semantically identical to "This sentence is false".

It appears strange to you because you don't realize that "The color of this sentence is black" is a sentence with a belief attached to it whereas "This sentence is false" is a sentence with no belief attached to it.

Self-reference must be really confusing for you.

It is not. "This sentence is black" is an example of a self-referential sentence that I am perfectly fine with.

So why the double standard? Why are you not fine with "This sentence is false."

Why are you fine with the color-property, but not the truth-property of the sentence?

There is no double standard. And I already explained why I am not fine with "This sentence is false". It has no belief attached to it, and hence, no truth value.

"This sentence is black" has color property. "This sentence has false" has no truth value (since it has no belief attached to it.)

The sentence represents a belief. It has a belief attached to it. Despite your objections.

The sentence "This sentence is true."; and the sentence "This belief (represented as a sentence) is true; and the sentence "This belief is true" are semantically equivalent.

The issue is not whether it has a truth-vlaue. The issue is whether it has a truth-property.

Your last argument sort of agreed with mine. You admitted that it has no truth value (since the statement is neither true nor false)

What the fuck? Can you even comprehend anything I am saying? What I admitted is that the truth-value is undecidable. That doesn't mean it has no truth-property. What it means is that it has a truth-property whose truth value is undecided!

It's neither true, nor false. YET. It may become true; or false in future!

But that's your own invention, you see. As I've told you before, you can define words any way you like . . . but when dealing with other people's claims, you have to understand how THEY define their terms. And the definition of the word "proposition" as used in the law of excluded middle is not the same as yours.

It's not "my own invention" dickhead! That's literally why there's thousands and thousands of Internet articles by various people, Mathematicians, Computer Scientists and Philosophers are talking about it.

The crux of the matter is DECIDABILITY!

Either P is true; or not-P is true. Sure. So which one is true? DECIDE!

Is (P true AND not-P false); OR is (P false AND not-P true) ?

What portion of reality am I refering to when I assert things about myself? MYSELF!

Yes, but if I asked you to tell me how to locate you, you'd be able to do so and I'd be able to find you. In the case of the portion of reality that the belief attached to "This sentence is false" refers, you are not capable of doing that. You can merely say "It refers itself!" That's circular.

You'll find all of those things in approximatelly the same space! Very close to the location of my thirst; and all the rest of me!

That would be like me asking "Where are you?" and you answering with "I am where I am". It's dumb.

It may be circular but it's true! I am HERE.

What is it that you are actually asking about me when you ask "Where are you?". Galaxy? Planet? Country? City? Suburb? Exact GPS coordinates?
Where in life I am? Where in my headspace I am ? Where in my career I am? Maybe I was supposed to be somewhere and I am not there?

That question is polymorphic! What does it mean ?!?

Oh no! A circular definition! What does the term "definition" mean? Define the meaning of "definition"!

Didn't I? And what's your obsession with the word "definition"?

My "obsession" is with recursion (which is NOT circularity). And language is recursive so...

I should bloody well know what it is - I created the sentence!

That's how self-conceited people think . . . they think they know all about themselves.

I am not talking about myself. I am talking about the sentence I created.

Whatever they say about themselves must be true.

Well, if you want to go down the uncharitable route...Maybe you are lying right now?

There is no way in hell someone can have a skewed perception of themselves.

In general, of course they can! In this particular case - it's not true. Quit over-generalising and abstracting the concrete.

But most importantly, you didn't really create the sentence . . . you just used it. It's actually a well known sentence. Totally not your creation.

You are lying! You are literally objecting to THE WAY I am using the sentence appealing to "standard English" and objecting that it's "not a proposition" and "it has no truth-value".

It's pretty damn obvious that this is the first time you've seen the sentence used as a proposition!

So it's obviously not "well known" TO YOU. Otherwise you'd understand it instantly.

It is a proposition by design.

If it is, show us the portion of reality the attached belief refers to. Don't just make empty assetions. "I said it therefore it's true!" Can you be more egocentric than that?

Idiot. Show us the portion of reality where your question originates from! Show us the uncertainty attached to it! Don't just ask empty questions! Can you be more egocentric than that?

I can play the gaslighting game also.

I know how it works.

You're seriously blind to how much of a wreck you are.

Heh. And I bet you think a bit more masculinity would fix me, eh?

Maybe you want to resolve this with trial by combat instead of dialogue?

So I am giving you material that's closer to your level of comprehension.

I didn't ask for that material. You can stick it up your arse.

You can just say "No thank you." if you prefer to remain ignorant. No need to be a dick about it.

The fact that white is not a spectral color is totally irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant at all! If truth is correspondence to reality, but there is no such color as "white" in reality then what does "white" actually correspond to when you talk about a "white" piece of paper?!?

And most importantly: WHERE is that which "white" corresponds to? Is it "out there" (on the paper); or "in there" (in yourhead).

Sure... Soon as you explain to me what an "explanation" is.

So you're going to avoid providing one by pretending you don't know what the word "explanation" means?

Maybe I do. Maybe I don't know. I want to make sure we are using it the same way.

Explain what an "explanation" is.

That's a type error in my logic.

Who gives a shit about YOUR logic?

Anyone who talks about propositions. Or at least they ought to give a shit. It works better than classical logic.

The opposite of 2 is ALL numers except 2.

The opposite of "2" is "Not 2".

That's just a grammatical banality. What does "not 2" refer to?

It could refer to ANYTHING that's not the number 2. I am not 2. You are not 2. Planet Earth is not 2.

"Not 2" isn't "Every number except 2". It's "A number other than 2".

How is that any different to what I said ?!?! EVERY number other than 2 is a number other than 2!

Without actually specifying a number, "not 2" could be any one of 0,1,3,4,5,6,7...

Which is exactly what I said! How many heads does Joe Biden have? Any number but 2!

That number can be 1, it can be 3, it can be 4 and so on; but it can never be all of those numbers at the same time.

Well if it "can never be all of those numbers at the same time" then tell remove all of the numbers which are NOT the number of heads Joe Biden has!

You only removed 2 as a possibility.

So the set of possibilities is very much ALL numbers except 2. At the exact same time.

Wat? That's not what I am doing.

That's EXACTLY what you're doing merely blind to it.

You are mistaken about my "blindness".

No, a better analogy would be someone saying "Joe Biden is either a tree; or not a tree".

Obviously he is not a tree.

And so he could be a cat! Because a cat is not a tree!
Or he could be a horse. because a horse is not a tree!

An awful analogy.

Perfect analogy!

Given the set of possibilities Joe Biden could be anything <===> Given the set of possibilities Joe Biden could have any number of heads.
Joe Biden is not a tree <===> Joe Biden does not have 2 heads
Joe Biden could be anything, but a tree! <===> Joe Biden could have any number of heads, but 2.

Your reasoning started with "The number of heads Joe Biden has is not 2" and went something like this:

1) Because "1" is "not 2", the number of heads Joe Biden has is 1.
2) Because "3" is "not 2", the number of heads Joe Biden has is 3.
3) Because "4" is "not 2", the number of heads Joe Biden has is 4.
etc.

That's analogous to someone starting with "Trump is not a president" and then concluding the following:

1) Because George Bush is not a president, Trump is Bush
2) Because Obama is not a president, Trump is Obama
3) Because Nancy Pelosi is not a president, Trump is Nancy
4) Because AOC is not a president, Trump is AOC
5) Because Skepdick is not a president, Trump is Skepdick
6) Because horses aren't presidents, Trump is every single one of those horses
etc

Strawman. That's nothing like the reasoning I am demonstrating.

You are continuously confusing terms and types.

It's called bad logic.

Call it whatever you want, just stop doing it.

You're making an elementary, kindergarten, mistake. If you are not Trump that does not mean you are every single person who's also not Trump.

You fucking idiot. The mistake is yours, not mine. You don't even know on whose behalf you are speaking!

To ME it doesn't mean that "I could be every single person except Trump" - I know who I am; and who I am not.
To YOU I could be any single person, except Trump - You don't know who I am; and who I am not.

To YOU I could be Graham Priest, Jeff Behrends, Paul Elbourne, Luciano Floridi.

Who I am NOT doesn't tell you who I am! I told you that negating falsehoods doesn't produce truths but you don't listen very well.

It's embarrassing, but fortunately for you, you have developed a set of very strong defensive mechanisms to protect yourself from embarrassment.

You are projecting.

[Magnus Anderson]

If truth is correspondence to reality, but there is no such color as "white" in reality then what does "white" actually correspond to when you talk about a "white" piece of paper?!?

That piece of paper in front of me is white. You'd say the same about it. You wouldn't argue it's black. That's proof that white color exists in reality.

The visible spectrum is irrelevant because, contrary to the popular belief, the visible spectrum does not determine what colors exist in reality and what colors don't.

And most importantly: WHERE is that which "white" corresponds to? Is it "out there" (on the paper); or "in there" (in yourhead).

It's out there. The color of a thing is determined by the kind of visual experience the trichromat has when looking at that thing under certain conditions.

[Skepdick]

If truth is correspondence to reality, but there is no such color as "white" in reality then what does "white" actually correspond to when you talk about a "white" piece of paper?!?

That piece of paper in front of me is white. You'd say the same about it.

So waht? There is no relationship (other than convention) between what we say about things; and what things are.

As I keep demonstrating this is blue; or this is blue..

You wouldn't argue it's black.

I wouldn't because I don't argue, but I would still disagree.

Black is not a color either. You can't pinpoint it on the visual spectrum.

That's proof that white color exists in reality.

I don't think so. It doesn't address the actual issue: the location of white (or black - now that you mention it)

Naively (and not knowing that the color spectrum has no colors such as white) one would be tempted to say that's a sufficient demonstration.
But you do know that the color spectrum has no white color. So where is white located?

The visible spectrum is irrelevant because, contrary to the popular belief, the visible spectrum does not determine what colors exist in reality and what colors don't.

Really?!? The visual spectrum literally contains all colors in reality. Saying that it doesn't determine what colors exist in reality literally amounts to saying "reality doesn't determine what colors exist in reality".

So if reality doesn't - what does?

It's out there.

Then why can't you pinpoint it on the color spectrum?

The color of a thing is determined by the kind of visual experience the trichromat has when looking at that thing under certain conditions.

This literally contradicts everything you just said! If white is "out there" then the observer's trichromacy; or tetrachromacy (or any other quirks of their visual system) don't matter!

White is white is white irrespective of the observer. So point out "white" on the color spectrum!