Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

[Scott Mayers]

I don't know if I should even bother reading your post. (?) You insult my background and appear to be merely a noise maker PRETENDING he knows the subject. I am not wasting time on those who NEVER agree to anything one says and who disagrees to the NORMAL representatives of the subject matter.

To prove otherwise REQUIRES you demonstrate that you are a real person so that you can risk your reputation for any claims you make AGAINST OTHERS (like myself here) WITH SUCH A DEGREE of volatile accusations against another's particular background. I don't mind you doubting me about something; I DO mind being undermined in such a way that denies my own credibility on this subject when it is the conventional norm with respects to logic.

I already asked you to merely EXPLAIN your presumed "objective evidence" of which you won't provide. Your lack of willingness to do that suffices to let me know that I'm wasting my time with you.

[Eodnhoj7]

If P==P is false then P==-P can be observed as true as it necessitates total equality as bunk.

Yeah? No!

identity-what.png

Reality, which exists outside a computer program, points other wise.




P=-P



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 in all directions, thus opposition, at the same time in the same context is a circle.

[Eodnhoj7]

word definitions. all numbers. mathematical relationships. conceptuals.
If you want to know philosophy it is useful to understand the differences between a priori and a posteriori

You are not even saying any thing here. This is arbitrarily tauological. It does not advance and argument. And is incidentally apriori

No a colour refers to a wavelength but different colours are subjective. But there is hope in this statement.

Not relevant. TIme is analogue. Units and "grains" of time are part of your confusion.
Why have you dumped your confused statement about two colours existing and not existing?

More bolocks

You have not presented ANY argument.
We are still waiting.

1. All quantifiers and variables exist because of sensory knowledge; their relationships exist as proven because of the senses. All a priori knowledge exists because of its groundings in the empirical. A number cannot exist without first quantifying something. A concept cannot occur without first pointing to a physical phenomenon. The concept of 1 equates to an infinite variety of physical phenomenon and cannot exist without it. All theoretical knowledge is grounded in and proven through the empirical...there is no strict a priori knowledge.

2. Time is the relationship of parts thus is empirical; it is change and change is empirical.
2a. "If time is a duration then any instance of time is a duration."= All instances are durations. Given all instances are durations multiple phenomenon can occur in one instance.

3. Different colors are different wavelengths and different wavelengths are objective.

colours are subjective. wavelength are objective.
Colours are qualitatively different; wavelngth are quantitatively different.
I think this is what you do not understand.

4. Time is change; change is a relationship of parts. The change due to one grain of sand falling exists in relation to the larger pile. Change is fractals. Fractals are fractions (ex: one line being composed of multiple similar lines). Change is fractions and as fractions are the relationship of parts in comparison to a greater whole (ie falling sand grains as part of a sand pile or one second as a part of a minute). Time being measured as the falling of sand grains from a sand pile necessitates time as the relationship of a part relative to a larger whole. Because time is a relationship of parts is occurs in durations given change occurs over a duration. Two different, or rather opposing, phenomenon can coexist within one duration (me moving and stopping my hand within the duration of one grain of sand falling).

5. You ignored the example of the square peg and the square hole.

6. You ignored the example of the square peg and the square hole as well as the "hanging" Judas. Dually one road goes both ways.

I do not care what shape you hole is; one bad analogy is not better than any other.

1. Colors are wavelengths; this is what you fail to understand. A quality does not exist without a quantity and a quantity does not exist without a quality.

2. One both steps in the same river and a different river at the same time.

[Skepdick]

I don't know if I should even bother reading your post.

Well if you don't know, then who does?

You insult my background and appear to be merely a noise maker PRETENDING he knows the subject.

Why do you feel insulted by a rejection of your expertise/authority?

I am not making any knowlede-claims here. I am only expressing myself.
I am expressing myself by writing meta-circular evaluators which (in turn) evaluate formal expressions.

Why is my self-expression insulting you?

I am not wasting time on those who NEVER agree to anything one says and who disagrees to the NORMAL representatives of the subject matter.

How ironic! The very reason I disagree with you is BECAUSE you keep appealing to normatives. Did you even pay attention in Philosophy class?
Didn't they teach you about the is-ought gap?

I reject your normal and substitute my normal.

To prove otherwise REQUIRES you demonstrate that you are a real person so that you can risk your reputation for any claims you make AGAINST OTHERS (like myself here) WITH SUCH A DEGREE of volatile accusations against another's particular background.

Huh! Nobody is accusing you of anything. Why are you using such inflamatory language?

I am dismissing you - yes.
I am negating your axioms - yes.

But I am certainly not accusing you of anything.

I don't mind you doubting me about something; I DO mind being undermined in such a way that denies my own credibility on this subject when it is the conventional norm with respects to logic.

You have no credibility in my eyes. Your appeal to the conventional norm is an Argumentum ad populum. And you get bonus points for irony. You are using a logical fallacy to justify your expertise in Logical normatives.

You keep appealing to axioms you can't justify.

Perhaps your identity feels threatened because you believe in the identity axiom?

I already asked you to merely EXPLAIN your presumed "objective evidence" of which you won't provide.

And if you keep lying like this - I hope you lose your credibility further. The evidence is an objective evaluator, a domain-specific language in which the expression "P == P" evaluates to False.

Your lack of willingness to do that suffices to let me know that I'm wasting my time with you.

Your continued insistence that I am unwilling to do what I have already done makes you look delusional.

[Skepdick]

Reality, which exists outside a computer program, points other wise.

What or where is this "reality"? Point at it.

I bet you can only point to parts of reality, but you can never point at reality!

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.

I am not sure which part in your example amounts to the "==" operator.

Are you saying "Judas hanged at x time" == "Judas did not hang at x time" ?

2. One road goes both ways.

I am not sure which part in your example amounts to the "==" operator.

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

I am not sure which part in your example amounts to the "==" operator.

A square peg is one thing. The equality operator is binary, not unary.

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 in all directions, thus opposition, at the same time in the same context is a circle.

I am not sure which part in your examples amounts to the "==" operator.

Now != Now because of the pasage of time.

[Sculptor]

1. Colors are wavelengths; this is what you fail to understand. A quality does not exist without a quantity and a quantity does not exist without a quality.

2. One both steps in the same river and a different river at the same time.

You are a very confused person.

1. False. You can even go back to read me saying that different colours are due to different wavelength.

2. Not remotely relevant.

[Eodnhoj7]

Reality, which exists outside a computer program, points other wise.

What or where is this "reality"? Point at it.

I bet you can only point to parts of reality, but you can never point at reality!

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.

I am not sure which part in your example amounts to the "==" operator.

Are you saying "Judas hanged at x time" == "Judas did not hang at x time" ?

2. One road goes both ways.

I am not sure which part in your example amounts to the "==" operator.

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

I am not sure which part in your example amounts to the "==" operator.

A square peg is one thing. The equality operator is binary, not unary.

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 in all directions, thus opposition, at the same time in the same context is a circle.

I am not sure which part in your examples amounts to the "==" operator.

Now != Now because of the pasage of time.

1. Pointing is reality.

2. Judas Hanged==Judas did not hang. The hanging of Judas equated to the non hanging of Judas as both occur simultaneously under the the same context of Judas existing.

3. One road left==One road right; left is a relative right and right is a relative left.

4. peg==hole; the peg is the hole under the same context of square. Equality shows a connection thus is unitary; It shows a connection thus necessitates parts (non-unitary). Equality is both unitary and non-unitary.

5. Even thought I use the "==" operator in points 2,3 and 4 this point is mute. If == necessitates multiplicity, as it is dyadic (a==a results in two "a's"), and I am arguing P and -P are the same then I cannot use the == operator can I?

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Colors are wavelengths; this is what you fail to understand. A quality does not exist without a quantity and a quantity does not exist without a quality.

2. One both steps in the same river and a different river at the same time.

You are a very confused person.

1. False. You can even go back to read me saying that different colours are due to different wavelength.

2. Not remotely relevant.

1. "colours are subjective. wavelength are objective.
Colours are qualitatively different; wavelngth are quantitatively different.
I think this is what you do not understand."

A quality does not exist without a quantity and a quantity does not exist without a quality. You cannot differentiate colors and wavelengths; they are the same thing.

2. "I do not care what shape you hole is; one bad analogy is not better than any other."

One steps both into the same river and a different river at the same time...this is a valid analogy.

[Sculptor]

1. Colors are wavelengths; this is what you fail to understand. A quality does not exist without a quantity and a quantity does not exist without a quality.

2. One both steps in the same river and a different river at the same time.

You are a very confused person.

1. False. You can even go back to read me saying that different colours are due to different wavelength.

2. Not remotely relevant.

1. "colours are subjective. wavelength are objective.
Colours are qualitatively different; wavelngth are quantitatively different.
I think this is what you do not understand."

A quality does not exist without a quantity and a quantity does not exist without a quality. You cannot differentiate colors and wavelengths; they are the same thing.

No - colours no not exist in nature. They exist only in the mind.

2. "I do not care what shape you hole is; one bad analogy is not better than any other."

One steps both into the same river and a different river at the same time...this is a valid analogy.

There is no same river.
That is a subjective fantasm like colours

[Eodnhoj7]

You are a very confused person.

1. False. You can even go back to read me saying that different colours are due to different wavelength.

2. Not remotely relevant.

1. "colours are subjective. wavelength are objective.
Colours are qualitatively different; wavelngth are quantitatively different.
I think this is what you do not understand."

A quality does not exist without a quantity and a quantity does not exist without a quality. You cannot differentiate colors and wavelengths; they are the same thing.

No - colours no not exist in nature. They exist only in the mind.

2. "I do not care what shape you hole is; one bad analogy is not better than any other."

One steps both into the same river and a different river at the same time...this is a valid analogy.

There is no same river.
That is a subjective fantasm like colours

1. This can be taken at a minimum in three ways:
1a. Colors exist outside the mind as wavelengths; colors=wavelengths.
1b. The universe is self-aware therefore colors exist outside the human mind as part of the universal mind. Colors exist only in the mind, yes, but there is a mind beyond the human mind.
1c. The mind is a part of nature given nature evolved into the mind, thus what is a part of the mind is a part of nature.

2. If there is no same river then a river cannot be named and pointed to repeatedly in reference to the same name; in simpler terms one points to a river and calls it x, then later they point to the river again and call it x... x is a boundary that contains movement; ie x is a set of definable limits which contain change on the inside. To name the river is to name something that has continuity; continuity necessitates a degree of sameness. To build off of this we would not be able to name a river a "river" at all unless the flowing water has similar qualities to other flowing waters.

This example further references the nature of language, if all things where completely different we would not be able to call a set of objects "x". There would be no set which shares certain qualities; because sets of qualities exist there are similarities. Now you can say a set is completely subjective, but given this state is viewed through a multitude of subjective angles pointing to the same thing they exist objectively. Objectivity is multiple subjective angles pointing to the same thing.

The multitude of perspectives pointing to the same thing is a result of evolution in nature, pointing is an act of measurement which evolves from nature thus is part of nature.

3. To equate empirical phenomenon to a subjective state is to make a statement which is subjective because it (the statement) is observed through the senses. If it is completely subjective it does not hold universal truth, however arguing "all empirically observed phenomenon are subjective", which must include this statement as it appears through the senses, then a contradiction occurs as it is a universal (goes across multiple subjective states) truth.

[Sculptor]

1. "colours are subjective. wavelength are objective.
Colours are qualitatively different; wavelngth are quantitatively different.
I think this is what you do not understand."

A quality does not exist without a quantity and a quantity does not exist without a quality. You cannot differentiate colors and wavelengths; they are the same thing.

No - colours no not exist in nature. They exist only in the mind.

2. "I do not care what shape you hole is; one bad analogy is not better than any other."

One steps both into the same river and a different river at the same time...this is a valid analogy.

There is no same river.
That is a subjective fantasm like colours

1. This can be taken at a minimum in three ways:
1a. Colors exist outside the mind as wavelengths; colors=wavelengths.

But that is the point. They are not "colours". It's light.

1b. The universe is self-aware therefore colors exist outside the human mind as part of the universal mind. Colors exist only in the mind, yes, but there is a mind beyond the human mind.

1c. The mind is a part of nature given nature evolved into the mind, thus what is a part of the mind is a part of nature.

No very helpful. Even if you accept that colours are still subjective, THey are Qualia.

2. If there is no same river then a river cannot be named and pointed to repeatedly in reference to the same name;

Then you are contradicting yourself

in simpler terms one points to a river and calls it x, then later they point to the river again and call it x... x is a boundary that contains movement; ie x is a set of definable limits which contain change on the inside. To name the river is to name something that has continuity; continuity necessitates a degree of sameness. To build off of this we would not be able to name a river a "river" at all unless the flowing water has similar qualities to other flowing waters.

This example further references the nature of language, if all things where completely different we would not be able to call a set of objects "x". There would be no set which shares certain qualities; because sets of qualities exist there are similarities. Now you can say a set is completely subjective, but given this state is viewed through a multitude of subjective angles pointing to the same thing they exist objectively. Objectivity is multiple subjective angles pointing to the same thing.

The multitude of perspectives pointing to the same thing is a result of evolution in nature, pointing is an act of measurement which evolves from nature thus is part of nature.

3. To equate empirical phenomenon to a subjective state is to make a statement which is subjective because it (the statement) is observed through the senses. If it is completely subjective it does not hold universal truth, however arguing "all empirically observed phenomenon are subjective", which must include this statement as it appears through the senses, then a contradiction occurs as it is a universal (goes across multiple subjective states) truth.

I think we have reached the "Whatever" stage of the argument, since nothing you are posting has anything to do with the thread.

[Eodnhoj7]

No - colours no not exist in nature. They exist only in the mind.


There is no same river.
That is a subjective fantasm like colours

1. This can be taken at a minimum in three ways:
1a. Colors exist outside the mind as wavelengths; colors=wavelengths.

But that is the point. They are not "colours". It's light.

1b. The universe is self-aware therefore colors exist outside the human mind as part of the universal mind. Colors exist only in the mind, yes, but there is a mind beyond the human mind.

1c. The mind is a part of nature given nature evolved into the mind, thus what is a part of the mind is a part of nature.

No very helpful. Even if you accept that colours are still subjective, THey are Qualia.

2. If there is no same river then a river cannot be named and pointed to repeatedly in reference to the same name;

Then you are contradicting yourself

in simpler terms one points to a river and calls it x, then later they point to the river again and call it x... x is a boundary that contains movement; ie x is a set of definable limits which contain change on the inside. To name the river is to name something that has continuity; continuity necessitates a degree of sameness. To build off of this we would not be able to name a river a "river" at all unless the flowing water has similar qualities to other flowing waters.

This example further references the nature of language, if all things where completely different we would not be able to call a set of objects "x". There would be no set which shares certain qualities; because sets of qualities exist there are similarities. Now you can say a set is completely subjective, but given this state is viewed through a multitude of subjective angles pointing to the same thing they exist objectively. Objectivity is multiple subjective angles pointing to the same thing.

The multitude of perspectives pointing to the same thing is a result of evolution in nature, pointing is an act of measurement which evolves from nature thus is part of nature.

3. To equate empirical phenomenon to a subjective state is to make a statement which is subjective because it (the statement) is observed through the senses. If it is completely subjective it does not hold universal truth, however arguing "all empirically observed phenomenon are subjective", which must include this statement as it appears through the senses, then a contradiction occurs as it is a universal (goes across multiple subjective states) truth.

I think we have reached the "Whatever" stage of the argument, since nothing you are posting has anything to do with the thread.

1. Colors do not exist without light as they are composed of light; light=color much in the same way a body=atoms.

2. If colors are subjective then there would not be able to be an agreement that red=red or blue=blue. Colors are objective as multiple subjective states align when a color is present; this multiplicity of subjective states aligning negates subjectivity.

3. The river is both the same and different; same in the respect a body of moving water can be repeatedly referenced (ie the body of water encompasses movement), different in the respect that the body of moving water is never the same due to this very same change. Sameness is the observation of a repeatable limit or boundary which contains change; difference is said change. One cannot say "x" river without referencing to the same body of change.

[Sculptor]

1. This can be taken at a minimum in three ways:
1a. Colors exist outside the mind as wavelengths; colors=wavelengths.

But that is the point. They are not "colours". It's light.

1b. The universe is self-aware therefore colors exist outside the human mind as part of the universal mind. Colors exist only in the mind, yes, but there is a mind beyond the human mind.

1c. The mind is a part of nature given nature evolved into the mind, thus what is a part of the mind is a part of nature.

No very helpful. Even if you accept that colours are still subjective, THey are Qualia.

2. If there is no same river then a river cannot be named and pointed to repeatedly in reference to the same name;

Then you are contradicting yourself

in simpler terms one points to a river and calls it x, then later they point to the river again and call it x... x is a boundary that contains movement; ie x is a set of definable limits which contain change on the inside. To name the river is to name something that has continuity; continuity necessitates a degree of sameness. To build off of this we would not be able to name a river a "river" at all unless the flowing water has similar qualities to other flowing waters.

This example further references the nature of language, if all things where completely different we would not be able to call a set of objects "x". There would be no set which shares certain qualities; because sets of qualities exist there are similarities. Now you can say a set is completely subjective, but given this state is viewed through a multitude of subjective angles pointing to the same thing they exist objectively. Objectivity is multiple subjective angles pointing to the same thing.

The multitude of perspectives pointing to the same thing is a result of evolution in nature, pointing is an act of measurement which evolves from nature thus is part of nature.

3. To equate empirical phenomenon to a subjective state is to make a statement which is subjective because it (the statement) is observed through the senses. If it is completely subjective it does not hold universal truth, however arguing "all empirically observed phenomenon are subjective", which must include this statement as it appears through the senses, then a contradiction occurs as it is a universal (goes across multiple subjective states) truth.

I think we have reached the "Whatever" stage of the argument, since nothing you are posting has anything to do with the thread.

1. Colors do not exist without light as they are composed of light; light=color much in the same way a body=atoms.

Colours do not exist without an observer.

2. If colors are subjective then there would not be able to be an agreement that red=red or blue=blue. Colors are objective as multiple subjective states align when a color is present; this multiplicity of subjective states aligning negates subjectivity.

We have agreement, but when I see blue, I see the same thing you see when you see green, And when Fre sees green he see the same thing I see when I see red.
We call them the same thing because of convnetion.
Other animals see completely different colours. Some see more colours most see fewer.
I am surprised you have not worked this out yet.

3. The river is both the same and different; same in the respect a body of moving water can be repeatedly referenced (ie the body of water encompasses movement), different in the respect that the body of moving water is never the same due to this very same change. Sameness is the observation of a repeatable limit or boundary which contains change; difference is said change. One cannot say "x" river without referencing to the same body of change.

River Smiver.

[RCSaunders]

No - colours no not exist in nature. They exist only in the mind.

Curious. What word do you use to identify those qualities of things everyone else uses the word, "colors," to identify. For example, when the traffic light changes from, "go," to, "stop," (green to red) most people say the color changed. What do you say changed?

[Sculptor]

No - colours no not exist in nature. They exist only in the mind.

Curious. What word do you use to identify those qualities of things everyone else uses the word, "colors," to identify. For example, when the traffic light changes from, "go," to, "stop," (green to red) most people say the color changed. What do you say changed?

Objectively the different light are characterised by different wavelengths.