You dismiss facts and demand opinions.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:07 pmYes, you are 'pointing' him away from your burden to argue your views independently. I think Google does a good job of that. There is no need to point one to others' views elsewhere. And so you are doing the 'babbling' here.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:46 pmI am pointing him towards an empirical body of knowledge pertaining to “concurrency”. It has a small section on logicScott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:20 pm
That's irrelevant. The reason the foundations discussing logic don't speak of contradiction as merely time-related is due to my example above regarding how one can reinterpret one's perspective of a contradiction by extending domains regardless of whether the issue is time or not. The example about 'existence' I presented was to point out that there are unspoken assumptions that often get missed when something appears to be contradictory. Because logic is more universal than particular subsets or extensional topics, 'concurrent' events limit one to assuming contradictions are only about time. You can have contradictions without concerning time.
Also, 'contradiction' doesn't have to be understood as an 'error' or confusion regarding the foundations of logic, only the description of something understood to have discrete binary options to be treated as conflicting when you introduce a third option that denies the meaning of the exclusion. The 'laws' of logic foundationally are only a way to begin with clearly defined concepts, the least of which is whether something is or is not included in some universal class regardless of what that class is defined as.
You are babbling about stuff.
One of those things is certainly “irrelevant”