(0=0)=(1=1)

[Eodnhoj7]

The numbers 1 and 0 can equivocate through a simple act of measurement:

1. There is only the totality, ie everything.
2. As there is only the totality this totality is 1.
3. However considering there is only the totality there is no comparison for it necessary for it to take form thus it is 'void' or 0.
4. 1=0 through the totality.

I disagree with your premise #3. But even if we accept it, your conclusion does not follow. What follows is that nothing can exist. For as soon as something comes into existence, we have one totality of everything that exists. And since there is nothing outside of the totality to compare that totality to, it follows, thanks to your premise #3, that that totality of existence is actually non-existence.

1. If there is only one then there is no comparison for it otherwise it would not be 'the only'.
2. The totality is a contradiction; the argument is intended to lead from 'rational' premises to a state of 'absurdity'.

[Eodnhoj7]

Considering truth is existence and numbers exist then truth is reducible to a number as truth and number are tied together by the underlying quality of existence both share.

Well, truth isn't exactly existence. Truth is a true belief i.e. a belief that corresponds to the portion of reality it refers to. Truth can be said to be something that can exist. But then, so can everything else e.g. horses, cars, unicorns, etc. But even if we accept that truth is existence, there's a problem with your argument. I can agree that quantities exist. But then, so do trees. Does that mean you can reduce quantities to trees? Does that mean you can say "1 = palma"? You can substitute a symbol only with a symbol that has the same exact concept attached to it. You can substitute "1" with "one" because the concept attached to both symbols is the same. You can't substitute one symbol with another merely because they have something in common. For example, you can't substitute "1" with "5" merely because they both represent numbers. You can't substitute "apple" with "orange" merely because both represent fruits. You can't substitute "Donald Trump" with "Joe Biden" merely because both represent something that exists or something that human or someone who's a male or someone who is or was a president. You can't do that.

If truth is not existence then we would not be able to point to truth when we say "truth"; a belief is an existence.

[Magnus Anderson]

You probably thing not wrong means right; or that not right means wrong.

I don't really subscribe to that sort of thinking.

It's a language issue. "Right" is defined as the opposite of "wrong". So yes, not right means wrong and not wrong means right.

[Skepdick]

You probably thing not wrong means right; or that not right means wrong.

I don't really subscribe to that sort of thinking.

It's a language issue. "Right" is defined as the opposite of "wrong". So yes, not right means wrong and not wrong means right.

No, it's not a language issue - it's a fundamental difference in reasoning.

You seem to accept the "law" of excluded middle; or as I already pointed out - your religion is Classical logic.

[Magnus Anderson]

No, it's not a language issue - it's a fundamental difference in reasoning.

You seem to accept the "law" of excluded middle; or as I already pointed out - your religion is Classical logic.

You have to be a complete and utter imbecile to reject the law of excluded middle.

[Skepdick]

You have to be a complete and utter imbecile to reject the law of excluded middle.

You have to be a complete and utter imbecile to accept it.

Where have you been in the last 100 or so years since Godel? Have you even heard of undecidability?

Is the sentence "This sentence is false." true; or false?

Circa 2022, I think Classical logicians should be treated with the exact same disdain as theists.

[Magnus Anderson]

Where have you been in the last 100 or so years since Godel? Have you even heard of undecidability?

Is the sentence "This sentence is false." true; or false?

None of which proves that there is a third option. You're a victim of sophistry.

Circa 2022, I think Classical logicians should be treated with the exact same disdain as theists.

You're a true postmodernist.

[Skepdick]

Where have you been in the last 100 or so years since Godel? Have you even heard of undecidability?

Is the sentence "This sentence is false." true; or false?

None of which proves that there is a third option. You're a victim of sophistry.

The sentence literally epitomises the 3rd option! Neither true nor false!

It's undecidable.

You're a true postmodernist.

I have no idea what that means. I am only demonstrating your ignorance with respect to the 3rd option - undecidability.

And I am most certainly demonstrating that you are at least 100 years behind the current human understanding of physics, which uses linear logic

[Magnus Anderson]

The sentence literally epitomises the 3rd option! Neither true nor false!

The law of excluded middle says that "For every proposition, either the proposition or its negation is true". It's talking about proper propositions, not pseudo-propositions such as "This sentence is false".

A proper proposition has a portion of reality it refers to and a description of it. In the case of "This sentence is false", when you try to deduce the referred portion of reality, you end up stuck in an endless loop. The sentence is talking about the truth value of another sentence (itself) which is talking about the truth value of another sentence (itself) which is talking about the truth value of another sentence (itself) and so on without an end. As such, the referred portion of reality cannot be deduced, and thus, it's missing.

I have no idea what that means. I am only demonstrating your ignorance with respect to the 3rd option - undecidability.

"Undecidable" means "cannot be decided". It has nothing to do with veracity. If the truth value of some statement cannot be decided, it does not mean the truth value of that statement is neither true nor false. It's apples and oranges.

[Magnus Anderson]

And I am most certainly demonstrating that you are at least 100 years behind the current human understanding of physics, which uses linear logic

You are a clueless parrot with no real understanding.

[Skepdick]

The sentence literally epitomises the 3rd option! Neither true nor false!

The law of excluded middle says that "For every proposition, either the proposition or its negation is true". It's talking about proper propositions, not pseudo-propositions such as "This sentence is false".

A proper proposition has a portion of reality it refers to and a description of it.

Cute sophistry.

The portion of reality that the proposition "This sentence is false" refers to is itself.

In the case of "This sentence is false", when you try to deduce the referred portion of reality, you end up stuck in an endless loop. The sentence is talking about the truth value of another sentence (itself) which is talking about the truth value of another sentence (itself) which is talking about the truth value of another sentence (itself) and so on without an end. As such, the referred portion of reality cannot be deduced, and thus, it's missing.

That's just your mind playing tricks on you. There is only one sentence and it's pretty clear which portion of reality is being refered to: itself.

"Undecidable" means "cannot be decided". It has nothing to do with veracity. If the truth value of some statement cannot be decided, it does not mean the truth value of that statement is neither true nor false. It's apples and oranges.

You can't explain this away with words, sophists.

For as long as you remain unable to assign a truth-value to the sentence "This sentence is false." it's neither true; nor false.

[Skepdick]

You are a clueless parrot with no real understanding.

That's quite rich from somebody who doesn't understand "understanding"; can't define "define"; and can't tell us what "meaning" means.

It's almost as if your brain short-circuits when it self-references.

[Magnus Anderson]

Cute sophistry.

The portion of reality that the proposition "This sentence is false" refers to is itself.

That's just your mind playing tricks on you. There is only one sentence and it's pretty clear which portion of reality is being refered to: itself.

For as long as you remain unable to assign a truth-value to the sentence "This sentence is false." it's neither true; nor false.

Yes, it refers to itself. Specifically, it refers to its truth value i.e. the truth value of "This sentence is false". But such a thing does not really exist. Truth value refers to the difference between what's inside the referred portion of reality and what's said about that portion of reality. Since the referred portion of reality is missing (as explained in the previous post), the sentence has no truth value. That's why it's "Neither true or false". It's the same reason why dogs are neither true nor false. Dogs aren't beliefs, so they have no truth value. "This sentence is false" is NOT a proper belief. That's why you can't use it to disprove the law of excluded middle.

Let's say you have two symbols: A and B. Let's say you want to figure out the meaning of A. Let's say the meaning of A is given as "Equal to the meaning of B". And let's say that the meaning of B is given as "Equal to the meaning of A". What's the meaning of A? Can you deduce it? You can't, right? There isn't enough information to do so. And if you tried to discover the meaning by following the clues, you'd end up in an endless loop. What's the meaning of A? "It's the meaning of B." Okay, but what's the meaning of B? "It's the meaning of A." Okay, so what's the meaning of A? "It's the meaning of B." And so on ad infinitum. It's a circular reference. You never get to a point where you say "Right, so this is what A means!" As such, the meaning of both A and B is not fully specified. Your response would be something like "But it is! The meaning of A is the meaning of B!" but that would be missing the point.

Here's another example. What's the referred portion of reality in the case of "Unicorns that live on Earth are green"? The referred portion of reality is "Unicorns that live on Earth". But such a portion of reality does not really exist. There are no unicorns living on the planet Earth. As such, that portion of reality is actually missing. And since it is missing, the statement is not a proper statement. It is NOT a belief. Your retort would be something like "But it does exist! The referred portion of reality are unicorns that live on Earth!" But that would be, once again, missing the point.

Consider this:

"Joe Biden's right head is larger than his left head."

The opposite belief is "Joe Biden's right head is equal in size to or smaller than his left head". According to the law of excluded middle, either P or not-P is true. If P is true, not-P is false, If P is false, not-P is true. So if the above statement is false, then it's negation, which is that Joe Biden's right head is not larger than his left head, is true. Noone is going to say the above statement is true, so it seems like, but only on the surface, that according to the law of excluded middle, we must accept the opposite belief. The reality is that we don't because the law of excluded middle only applies to proper statements i.e. statements that are describing real portions of reality. Joe Biden's right head and left head are non-existent portions of reality, so the above statement is NOT a proper statement and the law of excluded middle does not apply to it. It's a bit silly to apply the law of excluded middle to things that have no truth value (i.e. to things that aren't beliefs.) The only reason people are applying it to these statements is because they are a bit too dumb to understand that these symbols do not really represent beliefs. They LOOK like they do but they actually DON'T. Sophistry is ENTIRELY about deceiving appearances i.e. things looking like something they are not.

[Impenitent]

is Joe Biden's boat "navy one"?

-Imp

[Skepdick]

Yes, it refers to itself. Specifically, it refers to its truth value i.e. the truth value of "This sentence is false". But such a thing does not really exist. Truth value refers to the difference between what's inside the referred portion of reality and what's said about that portion of reality. Since the referred portion of reality is missing (as explained in the previous post), the sentence has no truth value. That's why it's "Neither true or false". It's the same reason why dogs are neither true nor false. Dogs aren't beliefs, so they have no truth value.

That's the dumdbest analogy you could've come up with.

The expression "This sentence is false." has a referer and a referent which coincide. An assertion is being made.
The expression "Dogs" has no referer.

Never mind that, of course "dogs" is a belief when used as a referer.


BLUE -------> ████ ( I believe that this color is blue )
RED -------> ████ ( You believe that this color is red )

If "they have no truth value" then how did you assert the truth-value of these sentences?!?

The color of this sentence is red.
The color of this sentence is red.
The color of this sentence is red.

^^^ DOGS

"This sentence is false" is NOT a proper belief. That's why you can't use it to disprove the law of excluded middle.

Disprove the law of excluded middle? So the law of excluded middle is either true; or false?



Now that's a vicious circularity. Stop wasting my time.