Contradiction Between Aristotelian Logic and Newtonian Physics
Contradiction Between Aristotelian Logic and Newtonian Physics
"For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" which necessitates P = P. However the principle of non contradiction states P =/= P. A contradiction between Newtonian physics and Aristotelian logic occurs.

 Posts: 2823
 Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Contradiction Between Aristotelian Logic and Newtonian Physics
No man ever steps in the same river twice.  Heraclitus
Imp
Imp
 Arising_uk
 Posts: 12312
 Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Contradiction Between Aristotelian Logic and Newtonian Physics
JohnDoe,
Why after all this time and repeated attempts to tell you that the "=" sign does not appear in Propositional Logic(PL) do you still keep using the symbol 'P' from PL? Why not use the Mathematical ones where it applies 'X=X'.? Maybe then you'll get some comprehension about what you talk about but I doubt it as the Mathematicians will then be confused as to why you are using 'X' to apply to nonmathematical objects. Also you still misunderstand negation as it is used in PL. This "P=¬P" is meaningless as is your application of it to the proposition "For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" as what you are saying is "For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" is the same as "It is not the case that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" which is a contradiction and patently false.
Why after all this time and repeated attempts to tell you that the "=" sign does not appear in Propositional Logic(PL) do you still keep using the symbol 'P' from PL? Why not use the Mathematical ones where it applies 'X=X'.? Maybe then you'll get some comprehension about what you talk about but I doubt it as the Mathematicians will then be confused as to why you are using 'X' to apply to nonmathematical objects. Also you still misunderstand negation as it is used in PL. This "P=¬P" is meaningless as is your application of it to the proposition "For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" as what you are saying is "For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" is the same as "It is not the case that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" which is a contradiction and patently false.
Re: Contradiction Between Aristotelian Logic and Newtonian Physics
"In logic, the law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself. It is the first of the three laws of thought, along with the law of noncontradiction, and the law of excluded middle. However, no system of logic is built on just these laws, and none of these laws provide inference rules, such as modus ponens or DeMorgan's Laws.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 1:23 amJohnDoe,
Why after all this time and repeated attempts to tell you that the "=" sign does not appear in Propositional Logic(PL) do you still keep using the symbol 'P' from PL? Why not use the Mathematical ones where it applies 'X=X'.? Maybe then you'll get some comprehension about what you talk about but I doubt it as the Mathematicians will then be confused as to why you are using 'X' to apply to nonmathematical objects.
Also you still misunderstand negation as it is used in PL. This "P=¬P" is meaningless as is your application of it to the proposition "For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" as what you are saying is "For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" is the same as "It is not the case that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" which is a contradiction and patently false.
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" demands two assertions: that of the action and that of the opposite reaction. The first action is thetical, the second is antithetical. One is the opposite of the other thus is its negation. For example a "ball moving to the right" is a thetical assertion. The "ball not moving to the right" necessitates its antithetical assertion.
The "ball does not move to the right" necessitates the "ball moving to the left" as an opposite movement. So while the "ball not moving to the right" does not necessitate "the ball moving to the left" (as the ball can move up or down), the "ball moving to the left" is still a negative and falls under an opposite.
In its formal representation, the law of identity is written "a = a" or "For all x: x = x", where a or x refer to a term rather than a proposition, and thus the law of identity is not used in propositional logic. It is that which is expressed by the equals sign "=", the notion of identity or equality. It can also be written less formally as A is A. One statement of such a principle is "Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.""
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
Who said I am limiting it to propositional logic? These laws reflect assertions, and are not limited to nor bounded as propositions. However each proposition can be counted as an assertion. Thus while the law of identity is not founded in propositional logic, it still implicitly exists.
Secondly, "=" can be replaced with "is", "therefore", ">" or "<>" as part of its implicit meaning.
Third, P is just a variable it can be replaced with Q or X or A in light of its usage.
The law of identity represents assertions.

 Posts: 384
 Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:59 pm
Re: Contradiction Between Aristotelian Logic and Newtonian Physics
The opposite of P is P in another direction. The P is illicit. Aristotle didn't do abstract formal "logic." It must be conected to ordinary apprehension.
Re: Contradiction Between Aristotelian Logic and Newtonian Physics
no.
"For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" means p is p
Re: Contradiction Between Aristotelian Logic and Newtonian Physics
See above:TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 9:25 pmThe opposite of P is P in another direction. The P is illicit. Aristotle didn't do abstract formal "logic." It must be conected to ordinary apprehension.
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" demands two assertions: that of the action and that of the opposite reaction. The first action is thetical, the second is antithetical. One is the opposite of the other thus is its negation. For example a "ball moving to the right" is a thetical assertion. The "ball not moving to the right" necessitates its antithetical assertion.
The "ball does not move to the right" necessitates the "ball moving to the left" as an opposite movement. So while the "ball not moving to the right" does not necessitate "the ball moving to the left" (as the ball can move up or down), the "ball moving to the left" is still a negative and falls under an opposite.
Re: Contradiction Between Aristotelian Logic and Newtonian Physics
Re: Contradiction Between Aristotelian Logic and Newtonian Physics
An action and opposite action are both terms, not propositions. One term is thetical another is antithetical. The thetical term is P. The antithetical term is P. While P is not limited to an opposite, the opposite is still a subset. For example a ball moving to the right has as its negation the ball not moving to the right. This may not be an opposite movement (up or down), yet its opposite (the ball moving to the left) is still the negation. So while negation does not limit itself to an opposite, it still contains its opposite as part of the phenomenon.
The thetical term contains as its opposite the antithetical term.
Keep in mind the usage of "term", not "proposition".
Re: Contradiction Between Aristotelian Logic and Newtonian Physics
That is not to say that P=PEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 11:13 pmSee above:TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 9:25 pmThe opposite of P is P in another direction. The P is illicit. Aristotle didn't do abstract formal "logic." It must be conected to ordinary apprehension.
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" demands two assertions: that of the action and that of the opposite reaction. The first action is thetical, the second is antithetical. One is the opposite of the other thus is its negation. For example a "ball moving to the right" is a thetical assertion. The "ball not moving to the right" necessitates its antithetical assertion.
The "ball does not move to the right" necessitates the "ball moving to the left" as an opposite movement. So while the "ball not moving to the right" does not necessitate "the ball moving to the left" (as the ball can move up or down), the "ball moving to the left" is still a negative and falls under an opposite.
Re: Contradiction Between Aristotelian Logic and Newtonian Physics
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 11:50 pmThat is not to say that P=PEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 11:13 pmSee above:TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 9:25 pm
The opposite of P is P in another direction. The P is illicit. Aristotle didn't do abstract formal "logic." It must be conected to ordinary apprehension.
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" demands two assertions: that of the action and that of the opposite reaction. The first action is thetical, the second is antithetical. One is the opposite of the other thus is its negation. For example a "ball moving to the right" is a thetical assertion. The "ball not moving to the right" necessitates its antithetical assertion.
The "ball does not move to the right" necessitates the "ball moving to the left" as an opposite movement. So while the "ball not moving to the right" does not necessitate "the ball moving to the left" (as the ball can move up or down), the "ball moving to the left" is still a negative and falls under an opposite.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests