All western/analytic Philosophy is bullshit

[Skepdick]

Only by setting them to the same value so that they weren't contradictory. Which is a useless way to test a law about contradictions.

Then take it up with Aristotle.

The LNC does not prescribe what the value of P is.
The LNC does not prescribe what the value of ¬P is.

All that the LNC prescribes is that (P and ¬P) ⇔ False

You tested (P ∧ P) ⇔ True and you just pretended to be testing the other thing.

Bullshit. I tested P ∧ ¬P. It says so - right in the code.

Code: Select all

(p and (not p)) == true

Does it really matter what I am testing? I've already framed the discussion - you lose the argument no matter what you say.

Either the LNC is descriptive, and therefore falsifiable

OR

The LNC is prescriptive and you've lost the is-ought war.

There is no shenanigans here, other than your inability to resolve the conflict between mutable and immutable reality. Deja vu much?

[Eodnhoj7]

False, because if if has no truth value it is a statement with no merit.

It's a statement about an empirical phenomenon. I am merely reporting what I am observing.

If you think it has merit it's you who is assigning it merit - not me.

Either you trust my report/observation or you don't. Either way - you can make the same observation I am making and decide for yourself.

Actually the decision making process, either true or false, is subjecting choice to the law of excluded middle. I see your proof as an expression of computer programming...ie it is true as a calculation done by a computer.

Quite frankly the proof against the law of non contradiction can be done in one's head.

[Skepdick]

Actually the decision making process, either true or false, is subjecting choice to the law of excluded middle. I see your proof as an expression of computer programming...ie it is true as a calculation done by a computer.

What I am really demonstrating is that given any linguistic expression, such as P and ¬P, you can have one computer which calculates it as "false"; and another computer which calculates it as "true"

That should be sufficient to demonstrate that the "correct" answer is simply a matter of choice.

The LNC is prescriptive, not descriptive. It's a value, not a fact - thus violating the is-ought gap.

Game over.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually the decision making process, either true or false, is subjecting choice to the law of excluded middle. I see your proof as an expression of computer programming...ie it is true as a calculation done by a computer.

What I am really demonstrating is that given any linguistic expression, such as P and ¬P, you can have one computer which calculates it as "false"; and another computer which calculates it as "true"

That should be sufficient to demonstrate that the "correct" answer is simply a matter of choice.

The LNC is prescriptive, not descriptive thus violating the is-ought gap.

Game over.

Then you are left with a contradiction in how choice is determined, without underlying laws, choices becomes an element of randomness.


It's a choice how you program the computer, the computer itself can be programmed to calculate 3=4 without deriving a contradiction:
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=27365

Just as the sun and moon as variables are equal through having color but differ in color, so numbers can equate to further numbers through the contexts which form them.

Truth is context alignment.

[Skepdick]

Then you are left with a contradiction.

You don't know what a contradiction is - the definition of 'contradiction' is arbitrary.

choices becomes an element of randomness.

Exactly. That's why Buridan's ass doesn't die.

[Eodnhoj7]

Then you are left with a contradiction.

You don't know what a contradiction is - the definition of 'contradiction' is arbitrary.

Actually a contradiction is a tautology of "dualism" or "dichotomy" which necessitates an inherent seperatedness between assertions. All distinction, that which seperates one phenomenon from another is born of this tautology.

choices becomes an element of randomness.

Exactly. That's why Buridan's ass doesn't die.

[FlashDangerpants]

Then you are left with a contradiction.

You don't know what a contradiction is - the definition of 'contradiction' is arbitrary.

True vs True is not contradictory. There is no spin you can put on it.
Your P was turned into Not P BEFORE you tested it against Not P.
That's why your test of Not P == P returns false even though the P == Not P version you linked to returns true.

You used a fraudulent grammatical representation of a contradiction - but you resolved the underlying contradiction in order to make it provide the result you wanted.

[Skepdick]

True vs True is not contradictory.

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?

There is no spin you can put on it.

I am not spinning it - you are.

The LNC is defined as: ¬(P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ True
The LNC is NOT DEFINED as True ∧ ¬True

You are grasping at straws.

Your P was turned into Not P BEFORE you tested it against Not P.

I didn't test it against anything.

I evaluated P ∧ ¬P. It evaluated to True instead of False. Are you suggesting that it should have evaluated to False?

Let me hear you say it out loud! The LNC is NORMATIVE!

You used a fraudulent grammatical representation of a contradiction

Fraudulent? I am using the exact same syntax as the formal definition!!!

P ∧ ¬P

but you resolved the underlying contradiction in order to make it provide the result you wanted.

Obviously it proves the result I wanted! So what?

Aristotle wanted P ∧ ¬P to be false.
I want P ∧ ¬P to be true.

That's what I keep telling you. The LNC is NORMATIVE.

The LNC is an ought. It's not an is.

[FlashDangerpants]

You used a fraudulent grammatical representation of a contradiction

Fraudulent? I am using the exact same syntax as the formal definition!!!

You gave it that appearance. As i said, you wrote out a statement with the grammatical form.
The P and the Not P you actually evaluated was, by sleight of hand actually (not(not P))

You cheated. And the reason you had to cheat was because ruby wouldn't give you the true you wanted if you actually had given it a contradiction to evaluate.

[Skepdick]

You gave it that appearance. As i said, you wrote out a statement with the grammatical form.
The P and the Not P you actually evaluated was, by sleight of hand actually (not(not P))

You cheated. And the reason you had to cheat was because ruby wouldn't give you the true you wanted if you actually had given it a contradiction to evaluate.

So you outright prescribing how P ∧ ¬P OUGHT TO BE be evaluated?

You are openly conceding that P ∧ ¬P is normative!!!!!

Q.E.D

[FlashDangerpants]

You gave it that appearance. As i said, you wrote out a statement with the grammatical form.
The P and the Not P you actually evaluated was, by sleight of hand actually (not(not P))

You cheated. And the reason you had to cheat was because ruby wouldn't give you the true you wanted if you actually had given it a contradiction to evaluate.

So you outright admitting that you are prescribing how P ∧ ¬P OUGHT TO BE be evaluated?

I have no idea what you are on about, and I don't care to waste my effort on 90 pages of this utter shit.

If P is switched for something other than P in that equation, then you broke your test. End of.

[Skepdick]

If P is switched for something other than P in that equation, then you broke your test. End of.

At no point was P switched for anything other than itself.

Ruby uses call-by-reference.

[Skepdick]

I have no idea what you are on about, and I don't care to waste my effort on 90 pages of this utter shit.

What I am "on about" is that the truth-value of ¬(P ∧ ¬P) is subject to choice.

Aristotle chose to evaluate it as True.
I chose to evaluate it as False.

That's why it's called a truth-VALUE. Because it's a VALUE. The subjectivity of it is right in your face.

If the truth-VALUE of ¬(P ∧ ¬P) is not subject to choice, then you are necessarily claiming it's normative, and Hume is laughing in his grave.

[Age]

I suggest if you want to see the actual Truth of things, then you start by speaking the actual Truth first.

The Truth is that there is no Truth.

Now fuck off.

So, another one saying; The Truth is; there is no Truth.

You have tried to make this claim before, but as I have already pointed out: To try and make the claim that there is no absolute, no objective, nor no Truth through a statement, is to just admit that that statement could obviously be completely and absolutely false, wrong, and/or incorrect itself.

And, why do words like: "Now fuck off", come about when one is at a complete loss as to how to explain and/or prove what they previously believed was the absolute Truth, but, which has obviously now been consequently shown to be False?

[Age]

That is a paradox, as it is a truth statement.

It's a statement.

If you think it it's a "truth-statement" it's you who is assigning it a truth-value - not me.

So, what do you assign your own statement if you do not assign it truth?

If a statement is not true, then what is it exactly?

Also, and by the way, changing your topic title after the discussion in the thread does not suddenly make your statement more true.

Any type of 'philosophy' is only "bullshit" if that is what you want to assign to it.