Contradiction as Truth

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Contradiction as Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

1. Contradictions occur through opposition.

2. Opposition results in contrast.

3. Contrast occurs through the void of one set of qualities within another set of qualities with this void allowing for individual sets of qualities to occur in relation to eachother (ie a square is not a circle but a square precisely because it has angles which are void from the circle).

4. This void is formlessness thus necessitating formlessness, through the void of one set of qualities in another through contrast, to be the grounds of definition through individuation.

5. Formlessness is necessary for a form to appear therefore contradiction, as an extension of said formlessness, is the grounds of being.

6. Contradiction is the grounds of being as contradiction underlies being.

7. Contradiction exists therefore existence is.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:29 am 1. Contradictions occur through opposition.
...........
It is true a contradiction occur as a state-of-mind in a person [stupid & ignorant], but a contradiction per se by definition and default cannot be true.
In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
Your trying to be smart only exposes you-are-not-smart and ignorant.
This is typical of most your claims.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:25 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:29 am 1. Contradictions occur through opposition.
...........
It is true a contradiction occur as a state-of-mind in a person [stupid & ignorant], but a contradiction per se by definition and default cannot be true.
In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
Your trying to be smart only exposes you-are-not-smart and ignorant.
This is typical of most your claims.
1. A contradiction is absent of form as the opposition between assertions necessitates a void between them. The contradiction is an observation of formlessness.

2. All propositions are dualistic in the respect you have the proposition and you have the absence of the proposition. To assert one thing is to assert a dual nature which is not the case.

For example the proposition "a square has four angles" results in the proposition "there is a phenomenon which does not have four angles such as a circle". One proposition exists and its negation results as a contrast to the aforementioned proposition. The proposition "a square has four angles" exists in contrast to "there is a phenomenon which does not have four angles such as a circle".

The first proposition is observed due to its contrast as the proposition is observed as an individual entity relative to what it is not. In simpler terms "one being" is observed because of its contrast to "multiple beings". This contrast is a contradiction and this contradiction observes a void within the assertions.

3. 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.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:31 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:25 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:29 am 1. Contradictions occur through opposition.
...........
It is true a contradiction occur as a state-of-mind in a person [stupid & ignorant], but a contradiction per se by definition and default cannot be true.
In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
Your trying to be smart only exposes you-are-not-smart and ignorant.
This is typical of most your claims.
1. A contradiction is absent of form as the opposition between assertions necessitates a void between them. The contradiction is an observation of formlessness.

2. All propositions are dualistic in the respect you have the proposition and you have the absence of the proposition. To assert one thing is to assert a dual nature which is not the case.

For example the proposition "a square has four angles" results in the proposition "there is a phenomenon which does not have four angles such as a circle". One proposition exists and its negation results as a contrast to the aforementioned proposition. The proposition "a square has four angles" exists in contrast to "there is a phenomenon which does not have four angles such as a circle".

The first proposition is observed due to its contrast as the proposition is observed as an individual entity relative to what it is not. In simpler terms "one being" is observed because of its contrast to "multiple beings". This contrast is a contradiction and this contradiction observes a void within the assertions.

3. 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.
You are bastardizing the Law of Non-Contradiction in this case.

Both the above can be in the same time but the contexts are different, one is referring the the empirical, the other to the mental.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:31 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:25 am
It is true a contradiction occur as a state-of-mind in a person [stupid & ignorant], but a contradiction per se by definition and default cannot be true.



Your trying to be smart only exposes you-are-not-smart and ignorant.
This is typical of most your claims.
1. A contradiction is absent of form as the opposition between assertions necessitates a void between them. The contradiction is an observation of formlessness.

2. All propositions are dualistic in the respect you have the proposition and you have the absence of the proposition. To assert one thing is to assert a dual nature which is not the case.

For example the proposition "a square has four angles" results in the proposition "there is a phenomenon which does not have four angles such as a circle". One proposition exists and its negation results as a contrast to the aforementioned proposition. The proposition "a square has four angles" exists in contrast to "there is a phenomenon which does not have four angles such as a circle".

The first proposition is observed due to its contrast as the proposition is observed as an individual entity relative to what it is not. In simpler terms "one being" is observed because of its contrast to "multiple beings". This contrast is a contradiction and this contradiction observes a void within the assertions.

3. 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.
You are bastardizing the Law of Non-Contradiction in this case.

Both the above can be in the same time but the contexts are different, one is referring the the empirical, the other to the mental.
But both are under the context of "mind" thus the groundings of perception. "The unicorn in a field in the mind" shows the unicorn exist as the unicorn in one respect and not existing, as the field, in the same respect. This applies empirically as well. The horse exists as a horse but is not the field thus the horse both exists and does not exist under the context "the horse in field".

Furthermore a shade of yellow contains non-yellow elements thus is both yellow and not yellow.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:34 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:31 pm

1. A contradiction is absent of form as the opposition between assertions necessitates a void between them. The contradiction is an observation of formlessness.

2. All propositions are dualistic in the respect you have the proposition and you have the absence of the proposition. To assert one thing is to assert a dual nature which is not the case.

For example the proposition "a square has four angles" results in the proposition "there is a phenomenon which does not have four angles such as a circle". One proposition exists and its negation results as a contrast to the aforementioned proposition. The proposition "a square has four angles" exists in contrast to "there is a phenomenon which does not have four angles such as a circle".

The first proposition is observed due to its contrast as the proposition is observed as an individual entity relative to what it is not. In simpler terms "one being" is observed because of its contrast to "multiple beings". This contrast is a contradiction and this contradiction observes a void within the assertions.

3. 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.
You are bastardizing the Law of Non-Contradiction in this case.

Both the above can be in the same time but the contexts are different, one is referring the the empirical, the other to the mental.
But both are under the context of "mind" thus the groundings of perception. "The unicorn in a field in the mind" shows the unicorn exist as the unicorn in one respect and not existing, as the field, in the same respect. This applies empirically as well. The horse exists as a horse but is not the field thus the horse both exists and does not exist under the context "the horse in field".

Furthermore a shade of yellow contains non-yellow elements thus is both yellow and not yellow.
Nah!

In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive. -WIKI

In the above case, you have to determine your 'shade-of-yellow' or shade of green, say at 80% yellow and 20% blue [non-yellow] and call it p.
Now the Law of Non-Contradiction state that p [80% yellow and 20% blue] and not-p [say 70% yellow and 30% blue] cannot be both true at the same time in the same context, they are are mutually exclusive.

Therefore the Law of non-contradiction still stands.
What most people [cheaters like you] are ignorant of the 'same context' requirement.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:34 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:32 am
You are bastardizing the Law of Non-Contradiction in this case.

Both the above can be in the same time but the contexts are different, one is referring the the empirical, the other to the mental.
But both are under the context of "mind" thus the groundings of perception. "The unicorn in a field in the mind" shows the unicorn exist as the unicorn in one respect and not existing, as the field, in the same respect. This applies empirically as well. The horse exists as a horse but is not the field thus the horse both exists and does not exist under the context "the horse in field".

Furthermore a shade of yellow contains non-yellow elements thus is both yellow and not yellow.
Nah!

In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive. -WIKI

In the above case, you have to determine your 'shade-of-yellow' or shade of green, say at 80% yellow and 20% blue [non-yellow] and call it p.
Now the Law of Non-Contradiction state that p [80% yellow and 20% blue] and not-p [say 70% yellow and 30% blue] cannot be both true at the same time in the same context, they are are mutually exclusive.

Therefore the Law of non-contradiction still stands.
What most people [cheaters like you] are ignorant of the 'same context' requirement.
1. Red and no red are both true at the same time under the nature of "redish-yellow". The context of redish yellow necessitates there being both red and not red under the same context, ie redish yellow. Dually one redish yellow may be 80% yellow and 20% red and another redish yellow may be 90% red and 10% yellow yet they are both redish yellow, one redish yellow as one mix exists and another redish yellow of another mix still exists.

The first redish yellow, as x, is not the second redish yellow, as y, yet redish yellow exists in two states with one not being the other therefore x exists and non x, as y, exists at the same time in the same respect. Redish yellow exists in two states with one state not being the other state. "x" and "not x" (ie "y) exist at the same time and the same respect over the middle context of "redish yellow".

2. Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.
You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration. Even the instant of swallowing food is a duration of time. There is no action which does not occur over a duration of time thus something may both be itself and not be itself at the same time considering time is a length.

3. The law of non contradiction is a relative truth and as relative falls under a nature of self-referentiality within the laws of logic, ie the laws relative to themselves. In applying the law of excluded middle to the principle of identity and law of non-contradiction the principle of identity may be chosen as true with the law of non-contradiction as false given either the principle of identity exists or the principle of non-contradiction.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:34 pm

But both are under the context of "mind" thus the groundings of perception. "The unicorn in a field in the mind" shows the unicorn exist as the unicorn in one respect and not existing, as the field, in the same respect. This applies empirically as well. The horse exists as a horse but is not the field thus the horse both exists and does not exist under the context "the horse in field".

Furthermore a shade of yellow contains non-yellow elements thus is both yellow and not yellow.
Nah!

In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive. -WIKI

In the above case, you have to determine your 'shade-of-yellow' or shade of green, say at 80% yellow and 20% blue [non-yellow] and call it p.
Now the Law of Non-Contradiction state that p [80% yellow and 20% blue] and not-p [say 70% yellow and 30% blue] cannot be both true at the same time in the same context, they are are mutually exclusive.

Therefore the Law of non-contradiction still stands.
What most people [cheaters like you] are ignorant of the 'same context' requirement.
1. Red and no red are both true at the same time under the nature of "redish-yellow". The context of redish yellow necessitates there being both red and not red under the same context, ie redish yellow. Dually one redish yellow may be 80% yellow and 20% red and another redish yellow may be 90% red and 10% yellow yet they are both redish yellow, one redish yellow as one mix exists and another redish yellow of another mix still exists.

The first redish yellow, as x, is not the second redish yellow, as y, yet redish yellow exists in two states with one not being the other therefore x exists and non x, as y, exists at the same time in the same respect. Redish yellow exists in two states with one state not being the other state. "x" and "not x" (ie "y) exist at the same time and the same respect over the middle context of "redish yellow".

2. Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.
You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration. Even the instant of swallowing food is a duration of time. There is no action which does not occur over a duration of time thus something may both be itself and not be itself at the same time considering time is a length.

3. The law of non contradiction is a relative truth and as relative falls under a nature of self-referentiality within the laws of logic, ie the laws relative to themselves. In applying the law of excluded middle to the principle of identity and law of non-contradiction the principle of identity may be chosen as true with the law of non-contradiction as false given either the principle of identity exists or the principle of non-contradiction.

Dually one redish yellow may be 80% yellow and 20% red and another redish yellow may be 90% red and 10% yellow yet they are both redish yellow, one redish yellow as one mix exists and another redish yellow of another mix still exists.

You are only insulting your own intelligence with the above.

"one redish yellow may be 80% yellow and 20% red" is P.

"another redish yellow may be 90% red and 10% yellow" is not-P.

Therefore what is P cannot be not-P as the same time in the same context.

Your claim [with contradiction] is like,
  • One animal is a dog [P],
    One animal is a human [not-P].
    Therefore a dog [P] is a human [not-P].
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human- ... s-animals/
So, are we animals? For many people today that sounds like a silly question. Of course, humans are animals!
or

One human is Trump [P]
One human is Biden [not-P]
Therefore Trump [P] is Biden [not-P].

or

One drop of water has three molecules of H20. [P]
One drop of water has 10 molecules of H20 [not-P]
Therefore three-molecules-of-H20 [P] is 10-molecules-of-H20 [not-P]

P cannot be the same and in the same context [at the refined levels] as not-P,
Get it?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:21 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:04 am
Nah!

In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive. -WIKI

In the above case, you have to determine your 'shade-of-yellow' or shade of green, say at 80% yellow and 20% blue [non-yellow] and call it p.
Now the Law of Non-Contradiction state that p [80% yellow and 20% blue] and not-p [say 70% yellow and 30% blue] cannot be both true at the same time in the same context, they are are mutually exclusive.

Therefore the Law of non-contradiction still stands.
What most people [cheaters like you] are ignorant of the 'same context' requirement.
1. Red and no red are both true at the same time under the nature of "redish-yellow". The context of redish yellow necessitates there being both red and not red under the same context, ie redish yellow. Dually one redish yellow may be 80% yellow and 20% red and another redish yellow may be 90% red and 10% yellow yet they are both redish yellow, one redish yellow as one mix exists and another redish yellow of another mix still exists.

The first redish yellow, as x, is not the second redish yellow, as y, yet redish yellow exists in two states with one not being the other therefore x exists and non x, as y, exists at the same time in the same respect. Redish yellow exists in two states with one state not being the other state. "x" and "not x" (ie "y) exist at the same time and the same respect over the middle context of "redish yellow".

2. Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.
You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration. Even the instant of swallowing food is a duration of time. There is no action which does not occur over a duration of time thus something may both be itself and not be itself at the same time considering time is a length.

3. The law of non contradiction is a relative truth and as relative falls under a nature of self-referentiality within the laws of logic, ie the laws relative to themselves. In applying the law of excluded middle to the principle of identity and law of non-contradiction the principle of identity may be chosen as true with the law of non-contradiction as false given either the principle of identity exists or the principle of non-contradiction.

Dually one redish yellow may be 80% yellow and 20% red and another redish yellow may be 90% red and 10% yellow yet they are both redish yellow, one redish yellow as one mix exists and another redish yellow of another mix still exists.

You are only insulting your own intelligence with the above.

"one redish yellow may be 80% yellow and 20% red" is P.

"another redish yellow may be 90% red and 10% yellow" is not-P.

Therefore what is P cannot be not-P as the same time in the same context.

Your claim [with contradiction] is like,
  • One animal is a dog [P],
    One animal is a human [not-P].
    Therefore a dog [P] is a human [not-P].
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human- ... s-animals/
So, are we animals? For many people today that sounds like a silly question. Of course, humans are animals!
or

One human is Trump [P]
One human is Biden [not-P]
Therefore Trump [P] is Biden [not-P].

or

One drop of water has three molecules of H20. [P]
One drop of water has 10 molecules of H20 [not-P]
Therefore three-molecules-of-H20 [P] is 10-molecules-of-H20 [not-P]

P cannot be the same and in the same context [at the refined levels] as not-P,
Get it?
1. One redish yellow, P, may exist simultaneously with another redish yellow, -P, in regards to potentiality. An action may result in a potential state where P and -P are simultaneous in said potential state...enter schrodinger's cat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat. This potential state necessitates P and -P as simultaneous. This potential state is potentiality actually existing as potentiality thus is an actual state.

2. The underlying context of two seemingly different phenomenon allow the seemingly different phenomenon to connect. This connection is equivocation. A man and a woman are both biologically different yet equivocate as human beings thus are equals due to this underlying context. The equivocation of man and woman, as P and -P, necessitates P being connected to its opposite. Two seemingly different phenomenon connect through an underlying middle context...without this middle context they do not connect...in the second half of your argument you are ignoring "only through an underlying middle context".

To say P=/=-P is to say men and women are not equal as men, P ,are biologically different to women, -P, yet are equal through their humanity.

3. A square peg, P, and a square hole, -P, both equivocate and directly connect with eachother. Dually Newton's law for every action there is an "equal" and opposite reaction.

4. To say, from your perspective, all is relative is to say that the law of non-contradiction is relative thus is false under certain contexts. If it is not false under certain contexts then it is absolute therefore your stance of all is relative contradicts itself....your stance makes little sense as you argue the laws of logic as absolutes but then argue all is relative.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:13 am 1. One redish yellow, P, may exist simultaneously with another redish yellow, -P, in regards to potentiality. An action may result in a potential state where P and -P are simultaneous in said potential state...enter schrodinger's cat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat. This potential state necessitates P and -P as simultaneous. This potential state is potentiality actually existing as potentiality thus is an actual state.

2. The underlying context of two seemingly different phenomenon allow the seemingly different phenomenon to connect. This connection is equivocation. A man and a woman are both biologically different yet equivocate as human beings thus are equals due to this underlying context. The equivocation of man and woman, as P and -P, necessitates P being connected to its opposite. Two seemingly different phenomenon connect through an underlying middle context...without this middle context they do not connect...in the second half of your argument you are ignoring "only through an underlying middle context".

To say P=/=-P is to say men and women are not equal as men, P ,are biologically different to women, -P, yet are equal through their humanity.

3. A square peg, P, and a square hole, -P, both equivocate and directly connect with eachother. Dually Newton's law for every action there is an "equal" and opposite reaction.

4. To say, from your perspective, all is relative is to say that the law of non-contradiction is relative thus is false under certain contexts. If it is not false under certain contexts then it is absolute therefore your stance of all is relative contradicts itself....your stance makes little sense as you argue the laws of logic as absolutes but then argue all is relative.
You are trying to eel your way around.

1. Note a crocodile egg has to be a potential to be either male or female but that does not mean male and female are the same within a specific context that make them distinct.

2. If you think men and women are the same reducible to humanity, then everything is the same when reduced to stardust.
In that case we can eliminate the words 'difference' and its synonyms from our vocabulary.

4. Note, there is no Absolute. Thus the Law of Non-Contradiction is not meant to be absolute and thus has to be used within its defined context.

What you are driving at is this;
Everything originated from stardust.
P originated from stardust.
Not-P originated from stardust,
Therefore P is not-P.

Therefore we must eliminate the term 'difference' from the human vocabulary.
The above is valid but not realistic and practical.
Instead note the wiser Buddhist's Principle of Two Truth, i.e. in general,

1. P is P [no context]
2. P is not-P [in context].

1 & 2 do not exist by themselves but both must work in complementarity.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 5:19 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:13 am 1. One redish yellow, P, may exist simultaneously with another redish yellow, -P, in regards to potentiality. An action may result in a potential state where P and -P are simultaneous in said potential state...enter schrodinger's cat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat. This potential state necessitates P and -P as simultaneous. This potential state is potentiality actually existing as potentiality thus is an actual state.

2. The underlying context of two seemingly different phenomenon allow the seemingly different phenomenon to connect. This connection is equivocation. A man and a woman are both biologically different yet equivocate as human beings thus are equals due to this underlying context. The equivocation of man and woman, as P and -P, necessitates P being connected to its opposite. Two seemingly different phenomenon connect through an underlying middle context...without this middle context they do not connect...in the second half of your argument you are ignoring "only through an underlying middle context".

To say P=/=-P is to say men and women are not equal as men, P ,are biologically different to women, -P, yet are equal through their humanity.

3. A square peg, P, and a square hole, -P, both equivocate and directly connect with eachother. Dually Newton's law for every action there is an "equal" and opposite reaction.

4. To say, from your perspective, all is relative is to say that the law of non-contradiction is relative thus is false under certain contexts. If it is not false under certain contexts then it is absolute therefore your stance of all is relative contradicts itself....your stance makes little sense as you argue the laws of logic as absolutes but then argue all is relative.
You are trying to eel your way around.

1. Note a crocodile egg has to be a potential to be either male or female but that does not mean male and female are the same within a specific context that make them distinct.

2. If you think men and women are the same reducible to humanity, then everything is the same when reduced to stardust.
In that case we can eliminate the words 'difference' and its synonyms from our vocabulary.

4. Note, there is no Absolute. Thus the Law of Non-Contradiction is not meant to be absolute and thus has to be used within its defined context.

What you are driving at is this;
Everything originated from stardust.
P originated from stardust.
Not-P originated from stardust,
Therefore P is not-P.

Therefore we must eliminate the term 'difference' from the human vocabulary.
The above is valid but not realistic and practical.
Instead note the wiser Buddhist's Principle of Two Truth, i.e. in general,

1. P is P [no context]
2. P is not-P [in context].

1 & 2 do not exist by themselves but both must work in complementarity.
1. Potentiality is a context thus two conflicting things exist under the same context.

2. If the Law of Non-Contradiction has to be used within its defined context thus this context of usage is absolute therefore negating your stance of all is relative.

3. What is not practical about treating all of being with the same amount of respect and dignity given it comes from a common source?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:06 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 5:19 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:13 am 1. One redish yellow, P, may exist simultaneously with another redish yellow, -P, in regards to potentiality. An action may result in a potential state where P and -P are simultaneous in said potential state...enter schrodinger's cat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat. This potential state necessitates P and -P as simultaneous. This potential state is potentiality actually existing as potentiality thus is an actual state.

2. The underlying context of two seemingly different phenomenon allow the seemingly different phenomenon to connect. This connection is equivocation. A man and a woman are both biologically different yet equivocate as human beings thus are equals due to this underlying context. The equivocation of man and woman, as P and -P, necessitates P being connected to its opposite. Two seemingly different phenomenon connect through an underlying middle context...without this middle context they do not connect...in the second half of your argument you are ignoring "only through an underlying middle context".

To say P=/=-P is to say men and women are not equal as men, P ,are biologically different to women, -P, yet are equal through their humanity.

3. A square peg, P, and a square hole, -P, both equivocate and directly connect with eachother. Dually Newton's law for every action there is an "equal" and opposite reaction.

4. To say, from your perspective, all is relative is to say that the law of non-contradiction is relative thus is false under certain contexts. If it is not false under certain contexts then it is absolute therefore your stance of all is relative contradicts itself....your stance makes little sense as you argue the laws of logic as absolutes but then argue all is relative.
You are trying to eel your way around.

1. Note a crocodile egg has to be a potential to be either male or female but that does not mean male and female are the same within a specific context that make them distinct.

2. If you think men and women are the same reducible to humanity, then everything is the same when reduced to stardust.
In that case we can eliminate the words 'difference' and its synonyms from our vocabulary.

4. Note, there is no Absolute. Thus the Law of Non-Contradiction is not meant to be absolute and thus has to be used within its defined context.

What you are driving at is this;
Everything originated from stardust.
P originated from stardust.
Not-P originated from stardust,
Therefore P is not-P.

Therefore we must eliminate the term 'difference' from the human vocabulary.
The above is valid but not realistic and practical.
Instead note the wiser Buddhist's Principle of Two Truth, i.e. in general,

1. P is P [no context]
2. P is not-P [in context].

1 & 2 do not exist by themselves but both must work in complementarity.
1. Potentiality is a context thus two conflicting things exist under the same context.

2. If the Law of Non-Contradiction has to be used within its defined context thus this context of usage is absolute therefore negating your stance of all is relative.

3. What is not practical about treating all of being with the same amount of respect and dignity given it comes from a common source?
1. Potentiality is just a potential to be things in the future. A potential cannot be its manifestations which are added with all sorts of other things.
In this example the critical element is the potentiality of a croc egg to be either male or female.
There is nothing conflicting here until the right temperature has acted upon to eggs to turn them into males or females within the egg.
It is silly to say that rains [X] has the potential to cause floods [P] or not cause floods [not-P], therefore there are two conflicting things exist under the same context.

2. Nope! used within a context means conditioned upon a specific context, thus relative. In a way it must absolute, but then absolute in relation to the context and not absolutely absolute by itself.

3. Not relevant to topic.

As I had suggested don't try be a smart alec with the LNC as your attempts had turned you into a smart-fool as a result.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 5:19 am
4. Note, there is no Absolute.
WHEN will you COMPREHEND that stating; "There is no Absolute", is a CONTRADICTION in and of itself.

To state such a thing, in the way you have here, is an Absolute, (in and of), Itself. So, to say, "There is no Absolute", is ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, and not to mention just COMPLETELY ABSURD.

And to keep saying and stating it, is; INSANITY.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 5:19 am Thus the Law of Non-Contradiction is not meant to be absolute and thus has to be used within its defined context.

What you are driving at is this;
Everything originated from stardust.
LOL So, the stars or stardust existed PRIOR to the big bang, which is what is, Wrongly by the way, said to be where EVERY thing originated from.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by simplicity »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:29 am 1. Contradictions occur through opposition.
Since all things intellectual are contradictory by their very nature [all things contain all things, or all is One], this label is taken care of under the existence banner. The only thing you can say about anything is that it exists [for intellectual purposes]. Beyond that, there's no point to further the discussion.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 7:13 pm Since all things intellectual are contradictory by their very nature [all things contain all things, or all is One], this label is taken care of under the existence banner. The only thing you can say about anything is that it exists [for intellectual purposes]. Beyond that, there's no point to further the discussion.
All these people preoccupying themselves with knowing what they are talking about - none of them can tell you why they are talking about it.
Post Reply