The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

The law of non-contradiction is false. "A unicorn does not exist in the mind" and "a unicorn exists in the mind" can both be true given the underlying context of "the unicorn exists in a field in the mind". The unicorn exists in contrast to the field thus it exists in one respect. However the field is not the unicorn thus the presence of the field is an absence of the unicorn; the unicorn may exist in the field but it is not the field. Under the same context of mind the unicorn both exists, as itself, and does not exist, as the field.
alan1000
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:03 am

Re: The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by alan1000 »

Of course, the amount of grass in the field has to be taken into account. If there is no grass, the unicorn will soon cease to exist.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

alan1000 wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 3:39 pm Of course, the amount of grass in the field has to be taken into account. If there is no grass, the unicorn will soon cease to exist.
But the grass is not the unicorn and is necessary for the unicorn's identity. P requires -P and -P requires P; this requirement of one for another is equivocation.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:33 pm The law of non-contradiction is false. "A unicorn does not exist in the mind" and "a unicorn exists in the mind" can both be true given the underlying context of "the unicorn exists in a field in the mind". The unicorn exists in contrast to the field thus it exists in one respect. However the field is not the unicorn thus the presence of the field is an absence of the unicorn; the unicorn may exist in the field but it is not the field. Under the same context of mind the unicorn both exists, as itself, and does not exist, as the field.
There is name for nonsense you spout. It's called equivocation.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 6:26 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:33 pm The law of non-contradiction is false. "A unicorn does not exist in the mind" and "a unicorn exists in the mind" can both be true given the underlying context of "the unicorn exists in a field in the mind". The unicorn exists in contrast to the field thus it exists in one respect. However the field is not the unicorn thus the presence of the field is an absence of the unicorn; the unicorn may exist in the field but it is not the field. Under the same context of mind the unicorn both exists, as itself, and does not exist, as the field.
There is name for nonsense you spout. It's called equivocation.
1. I am stating everything is a contradiction if "non"-contradiction is false.

2. Each word changes in definition relative to another word thus each word is ambiguous as it results in many things due to the introduction of many contexts. Ambiguity results when one definition is dependent upon another, and this other is dependent on another, so on and so forth.

3. The fallacy of equivocation results in the fallacy of equivocation as there are many ways to describe equivocation. Dually the fallacy of equivocation falls under the fallacy of authority, as equivocation is only taken as fallacious due to an authority stating so, which further falls under the bandwagon fallacy, as authorities are the result of group agreement as well as equivocation being group agreement, which falls under the slippery slope fallacy, as one fallacy leads to another, so on and so forth.

The fallacies are made up and contradict when applied to each other or when applied self-referentially:

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=31620
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Dontaskme »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:33 pm The law of non-contradiction is false. "A unicorn does not exist in the mind" and "a unicorn exists in the mind" can both be true given the underlying context of "the unicorn exists in a field in the mind". The unicorn exists in contrast to the field thus it exists in one respect. However the field is not the unicorn thus the presence of the field is an absence of the unicorn; the unicorn may exist in the field but it is not the field. Under the same context of mind the unicorn both exists, as itself, and does not exist, as the field.
This is pointing to a truth that in context is accurate.

There can be no such thing as a law of non-contradiction.

Non-contradiction is contradiction.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Iwannaplato »

It seems to me relativity and superposition allow for countless instances where opposed statements can be true.
wtf
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by wtf »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:06 pm It seems to me relativity and superposition allow for countless instances where opposed statements can be true.
Can you give specific examples?

In relativity, certain measurements are relative to a given frame of reference.

In QM, an event may have no determinate state until it's measured.

In neither case, per my understanding, could we legitimately say that "opposed statements can be true."

Can you put your remark into context? After all, I'm in Duluth today and I'll be in Saskatchewan tomorrow, but that's not a contradiction.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Iwannaplato »

wtf wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 11:32 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:06 pm It seems to me relativity and superposition allow for countless instances where opposed statements can be true.
Can you give specific examples?

In relativity, certain measurements are relative to a given frame of reference.

In QM, an event may have no determinate state until it's measured.

In neither case, per my understanding, could we legitimately say that "opposed statements can be true."

Can you put your remark into context? After all, I'm in Duluth today and I'll be in Saskatchewan tomorrow, but that's not a contradiction.
Does a particle have a spin if it is not measured? Could one say yes it has a spin AND not it does not yet until it is measured? I realize there are different interpretations of this. But I think a case can be made either that it does and does not have a specific spin or a spin at all. Since spin is one of the qualities of a particle, then is it lacking qualities until these are measured? This opens the door for it to not exist (yet). But then how can you measure something that does not exist? (iow I am looking at a couple of possible contradictory true statements 1) about it's spin or having a spin at all (yet) and 2) existing or not. Of course perhaps the secret is in this word 'measure', which carries with it the idea that we measure something already existing with certain qualities. But this may not be the case. A little bit in parallel to 'being a particle' and 'being a wave' were consider distinct states for 'something'. And they no longer were. So, yes, there may be hidden assumptions in language that allow for statements that contradict each other to both be true BUT this relies on ontological assumption building into language (particle, wave, measure, or even superposition) Perhaps measuring is a kind of making. Yes, some think that it is an epistemological absence not an ontological one. The particle has this or that spin, it's just we don't know and can't predict. But others think it is in an ambiguous state.

But I think for those who hold the Copenhagen interpretation, the door is open to contradictory statements both being true.

And if the problem is language, well, statements are made in language. And it is hard for us to know if the contradictory or seemingly contradictory true or seemingly true statements will later be show to be false. We are prior to those conclusions. I think the law of non-contradiction is a great heuristic, but I don't know how we could know that it holds. And since statements are made in language, it seems cautious to say that yes, we may find that some opposing statements are both true. And later we may find that there were ontological assumptions in the language that made it seem this way...or we may not. I think prior to the double slit experiments we would have said with great confidence that something cannot be both a particle and a wave. Or that particals are not waves, and dismissed statements that later turned out to be true.
wtf
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by wtf »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 12:45 pm
Does a particle have a spin if it is not measured?
...
I don't think you made your point. You are going on about the mystery of the interpretation of quantum physics. Everyone agrees that the equations work but nobody knows what they mean.

But you have not actually demonstrated, or even placed into context, your claim that "... opposed statements can be true."

In fact I anticipated your explanation by saying that we don't know what is literally true in QM before a measurement is made.

This is not a contradiction, it's just that we don't know the underlying meaning of QM.

It's frankly not any different than Newtonian gravity, where Newton was criticized for having a formula that worked to predict the motions of the planets around the sun, yet he could not explain what gravity actually was nor how it worked. In fact Newton anticipated the modern philosophical point of view of physical science: that it is descriptive but not explanatory.

You did -- apologies if this is too blunt, it's my style -- a lot of handwaving about the metaphysics of QM. Nothing new there, people have been worried about this for a century. Actually these days they've stopped worrying. "Shut up and calculate" is how you advance in your physics career.

So we're all agreed on this point. We don't know what QM "means" and maybe we never will. Maybe there's a deeper theory to be explicated by some genius not yet born.

Still, you said that "... opposed statements can be true," and you have not given a specific example nor made your point to my satisfaction. After all, the Schrödinger equation gives a unique, unambiguous answer giving the probability that we'll find some particle in some particular state if we measure it. It does not give conflicting answers, ever.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 6:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:33 pm The law of non-contradiction is false. "A unicorn does not exist in the mind" and "a unicorn exists in the mind" can both be true given the underlying context of "the unicorn exists in a field in the mind". The unicorn exists in contrast to the field thus it exists in one respect. However the field is not the unicorn thus the presence of the field is an absence of the unicorn; the unicorn may exist in the field but it is not the field. Under the same context of mind the unicorn both exists, as itself, and does not exist, as the field.
This is pointing to a truth that in context is accurate.

There can be no such thing as a law of non-contradiction.

Non-contradiction is contradiction.
Applying the laws of logic to themselves:

1. The law of identity, equality, exists or the law of non-contradiction, inequality, exists; this is because of the law of excluded middle.
2. If the law of identity exists, but the law of non-contradiction does not exist, then A=A and A=/=-A.
3. If the law of non-contradiction exists, but the law of identity does not exist, then A=Infinity (as it can equal an infinite quantity and quality of things, ie A=B/A=C/A=D/A=...); if A equals infinity then identity is indefinite therefore there is no identity.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

wtf wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 10:40 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 12:45 pm
Does a particle have a spin if it is not measured?
...
I don't think you made your point. You are going on about the mystery of the interpretation of quantum physics. Everyone agrees that the equations work but nobody knows what they mean.

But you have not actually demonstrated, or even placed into context, your claim that "... opposed statements can be true."

In fact I anticipated your explanation by saying that we don't know what is literally true in QM before a measurement is made.

This is not a contradiction, it's just that we don't know the underlying meaning of QM.

It's frankly not any different than Newtonian gravity, where Newton was criticized for having a formula that worked to predict the motions of the planets around the sun, yet he could not explain what gravity actually was nor how it worked. In fact Newton anticipated the modern philosophical point of view of physical science: that it is descriptive but not explanatory.

You did -- apologies if this is too blunt, it's my style -- a lot of handwaving about the metaphysics of QM. Nothing new there, people have been worried about this for a century. Actually these days they've stopped worrying. "Shut up and calculate" is how you advance in your physics career.

So we're all agreed on this point. We don't know what QM "means" and maybe we never will. Maybe there's a deeper theory to be explicated by some genius not yet born.

Still, you said that "... opposed statements can be true," and you have not given a specific example nor made your point to my satisfaction. After all, the Schrödinger equation gives a unique, unambiguous answer giving the probability that we'll find some particle in some particular state if we measure it. It does not give conflicting answers, ever.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34513

Examples:

1. "Judas hanged at x time" and "Judas did not hang at x time"; if Judas was standing on a stool with his toes planted while a rope hung around his neck holding up half of his weight he both hanged and not-hanged.



2. One road goes both ways.



3. A square peg equates to a square hole as both are squares.



4. Things exist through change thus the potential state of something must exist within the actual.



5. "We step and do not step into the same rivers; we are and we are not" Heraclitus



6. If all exists as one then opposites must equate to each other; there is a totality of being thus being is one therefore opposites are one.

7. At an instance of change both the actual and potential are one.

8. Continuous expansion and contraction, thus opposition, at the same time in the same context is a circle.
Post Reply