Contradiction as Truth

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Dontaskme »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:29 am 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.
Contradiction as TRUTH.

Is the only truth available.

Well articulated opening post. Well put.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by simplicity »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 7:27 pm
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.
I've always thought that if you wish to enter the intellectual realm, you must do it "understanding" that you do it as a matter of practicality [basic functions] or, if you desire to speculate, there's no chance that anything you can think-up has anything to do with Reality in any way, shape, or form.

This way you can dive into the shallow end without mistaking it for the other end of the pool. Eventually, most people figure out that you can only deceive yourself so long before you catch on that everybody knows that your are full of shit.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Scott Mayers »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:29 am 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.
I'm with Dontaskme here and liked Age's response, though I am not against the other people's right to misunderstand without prejudice. I agree that you properly expressed this and have improved since I first posted with you. I have always argued for this and am not sure if you originally shared this with me before or had upgraded your own thoughts based upon something I said. Regardless, I approve.

What the problem is for others in opposition here is that they've assumed the perspective of the individual within this world [our "Universe"] and not "Totality" as a whole. To help in expressing this, I differentiate by using the term,

Totality, to refer to "the absolute total reality OR realities to everything in all time(s), including any presumed religious Supreme Beings, its origins if not itself, and any other possibly imagined concept whether it exists or not, including absolutely nothing at all."

and then,

[This or one's own]Universe, to refer to "anyone's particular belief about our world in light of all possible theories about what Totality could be."

If we agree to use these definitions, then it might help to communicate some things. With respect to these definitions, you can express that Totality is iself as founded minimally on absolutely nothing itself. The term, 'originate' suggests time as the only foundation of existence. So before others should be confused, "absolutely nothing" would have to be what 'originates' if there is any 'original existence that causes anything with respect to time'; The only alternative is for interpreting our own Universe as never being without time. Totality, on the other hand, CAN be founded upon absolutely nothing or has to be interpreted as a continously infinite concept that makes everything 'true' in it somewhere.

Both absolutely nothing and absolutely everything are implied by absolutely nothing.

Let me explain, more for others given I know you should already understand this by default. This is identical to the Boolean algebraic expression,

0 & 1 = 0....from the postulates defining the properties of one and zero and equivocates with "something or everything" (1) and "nothing" (0), or, as in propositional logic, "true" (1) or "false".

And this is also equivalent to meaning that the contradiction, 0 & 1, as "No-thing exists or Some-thing exists" is equivalent to the value of "Nothing exists".

If this is understood by all, then the point you are holding is that ....

Totality is iself founded on Absolutely Nothing, which is a necessary contradiction.

Now you should be able to understand how others' have a hard time with this given they might interpret our own Universe as no different than Totality itself. It becomes a kind of religious bias about how our own reality is presumed the ONLY reality. But the distinction for them is the 'practicality' as far as they can see.

Okay, so as not to dismiss the relevance of what you others here may misinterpreting, while what you may think is 'practical' is shared equally by all as what matters, practice is about what each of us do independent of others' opinions about its virtues.

The point about asserting 'contradiction' as a reality relates to classes. If one is talking about ones' perspective of their Universe, what you would interpret as untrue may be to you what lies outside of it, correct? But Totality includes absolutely nothing and why it helps to recognize that we think in terms of all that we do not know as well. This is also practical when trying to make sense of reality metaphysically that sets the background for our physical Universe(s). So....

IF you come across a contradiction, it only raises questions of its acceptance within a particular Universe. That is, when you find one, it usually implies that one of the premises this contradiction's conclusion came from must be "incorrect".....for the given Universe of discourse! However, should you find it 'paradoxical' (meaning a real contradiction), it implies that you agree with real conflicting premises. IF it happens to be true, however, the contradiction implies that the 'resolution' is beyond the present domain of the assumed Universe of discourse.

For practical considerations, the default is to reject the conclusion because you are not expecting to go beyond the given domain, the Universe of discourse at present. However, because it is still practical to respect the possible premises that appear to be both true that lead to the contradiction in some real cases, it means that we require 'stepping outside the box'. This does not mean that we can simply just make up any PARTICULAR assumption because this would just be another of an infinite possible religious assertions. However there is a GENERAL safe assumption here that has to be absolutely true with respect to contradictions (or paradoxes): at the very least, what is 'false' is 'true' in the domain of Totality because is it just anything that is 'not-true' of our particular Universe along side of what is 'true' of it. This means that Totality itself is always both always including all that is true AND false collectively, and why it is appropriate to understand it as 'contradictory'.

NOTE that the term, "contradiction" literally derives from,

"con-" (with), "-tra-" (third), "diction" (spoken of)

The 'third' here is the "true & false" of "true" OR "false", as exclusively assumed binary options. Truth values are relative to the extent of Universal class you are assuming. Totality is necessarily 'true' by its own perspective of it containing absolutely all. But you, as individuals within it interpret this the opposite BY YOUR OWN independent perspective inside your own 'universe'. As such, you too interpret all that you know about what is both (true & false) as sincere (true) real binary options. If you cannot know it, it is outside your world and thus then gets interpreted as....

What is 'false' for my understanding of the Universe is certainly not something I can perceive as both 'true & false' when looking outside of myself [Totality] but rather exclusively 'true' or 'false'. On the other hand, what I can assert about my Universe is that it contains only what is 'true' with respect to what I know is both 'true' and 'not-true' looking inside of myself.

The point is, and something I expressed strongly before elsewhere, is that


Totality has no apriori lawgiver. So it has no reason to have 'laws', including any requirement to obey logic restrictions about consistent Universes from our perspective because it contains both consistent worlds and non-consistent ones.


So it CAN be 'contradictory' without violating rational reflection. This is what some religious have argued about their 'god' but who confuse a valued concept of it being only 'good' (or true by virtue of naming their being as 'Go(o)d'.) They interpret "true" as being coequivalent to being "good" and so incorrectly assign this 'Totality' as equivalent to their own 'Universal' perspective, the same bias the rest of you are making in kind, even where not intentionally implying some belief in God.

Contradiction is what I also argue represents a universal 'force' even if 'force' itself can be simply understood as distinct ordered universes. The 'ordered' universes are those that maintain consistency and thus appear to have causation by our inside perspective. But notice that 'ordered' things imply non-consistent distinctions about states. And as such, this helps prove why Totality itself has to be both consistent and inconsistent to cause our particular Universe's static (consistent concepts) and its dynmamic ones, (inconsistencies). And just as 'contradiction' FORCES one to address means to reassert a new consistent state, contradiction still has to be understood as true of our own Universe(s).

[mic drop]!
mic-drop-gif-8.gif
mic-drop-gif-8.gif (219.7 KiB) Viewed 1318 times
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:33 am NOTE that the term, "contradiction" literally derives from,

"con-" (with), "-tra-" (third), "diction" (spoken of)

The 'third' here is the "true & false" of "true" OR "false", as exclusively assumed binary options. Truth values are relative to the extent of Universal class you are assuming. Totality is necessarily 'true' by its own perspective of it containing absolutely all. But you, as individuals within it interpret this the opposite BY YOUR OWN independent perspective inside your own 'universe'. As such, you too interpret all that you know about what is both (true & false) as sincere (true) real binary options. If you cannot know it, it is outside your world and thus then gets interpreted as....

..................
Contradiction is what I also argue represents a universal 'force' even if 'force' itself can be simply understood as distinct ordered universes. The 'ordered' universes are those that maintain consistency and thus appear to have causation by our inside perspective. But notice that 'ordered' things imply non-consistent distinctions about states. And as such, this helps prove why Totality itself has to be both consistent and inconsistent to cause our particular Universe's static (consistent concepts) and its dynamic ones, (inconsistencies). And just as 'contradiction' FORCES one to address means to reassert a new consistent state, contradiction still has to be understood as true of our own Universe(s).
You are too rhetorical with the above in twisting meanings to suit your point.

Note the typical meaning of 'contradiction'
  • the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
    assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
    a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
    direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
    a contradictory act, fact, etc.
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/contradiction
In Philosophy:
  • In traditional logic, a contradiction occurs when a proposition conflicts either with itself or established fact. It is often used as a tool to detect disingenuous beliefs and bias.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
In both cases re philosophy, what is a 'contradiction' cannot be a 'truth' in relation to the specific purposes they are established for.

The OP is merely engaging in sophistry.

The most basic truest way to represent the OP is imply quote Newton's Third Law, i.e.
Law 3. If two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

In your posts, the matter is best represented by the more sophisticated Yin-Yang principles;
  • In Ancient Chinese philosophy, yin and yang (/jɪn/ and /jɑːŋ, jæŋ/; Chinese: 陰陽 yīnyáng pronounced [ín jǎŋ], lit. "dark-light", "negative-positive") is a concept of dualism, [& also unity] describing how obviously opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang
Trying to be a smart-alec in trying to justify "Contradiction as Truth" is simply frivolous.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Scott Mayers »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 6:05 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:33 am NOTE that the term, "contradiction" literally derives from,

"con-" (with), "-tra-" (third), "diction" (spoken of)

The 'third' here is the "true & false" of "true" OR "false", as exclusively assumed binary options. Truth values are relative to the extent of Universal class you are assuming. Totality is necessarily 'true' by its own perspective of it containing absolutely all. But you, as individuals within it interpret this the opposite BY YOUR OWN independent perspective inside your own 'universe'. As such, you too interpret all that you know about what is both (true & false) as sincere (true) real binary options. If you cannot know it, it is outside your world and thus then gets interpreted as....

..................
Contradiction is what I also argue represents a universal 'force' even if 'force' itself can be simply understood as distinct ordered universes. The 'ordered' universes are those that maintain consistency and thus appear to have causation by our inside perspective. But notice that 'ordered' things imply non-consistent distinctions about states. And as such, this helps prove why Totality itself has to be both consistent and inconsistent to cause our particular Universe's static (consistent concepts) and its dynamic ones, (inconsistencies). And just as 'contradiction' FORCES one to address means to reassert a new consistent state, contradiction still has to be understood as true of our own Universe(s).
...
In both cases re philosophy, what is a 'contradiction' cannot be a 'truth' in relation to the specific purposes they are established for.

The OP is merely engaging in sophistry.

....
Trying to be a smart-alec in trying to justify "Contradiction as Truth" is simply frivolous.
This is not frivolous in context to logic and your trivializing of the OP's position is itself just a rhetorical insult (and 'sophist'icating) of the author of the OP and a form of innoculation against anyone daring to speak of its siginficance without warrant. I saw how you kept ignoring the context in your responses above and know that you do not understand the argument because of it. When others too add to the insult rather than trying to understand, did anyone not notice that Eodnhoj7 didn't appear to be himself insulting in his own responses?

Multivalued logics depend upon these ideas and given that its uses relates to physics, it makes it also a justified point about reality. I personally require this IF anyone is to be able to understand my own theories. While I recognize it is a controversy for many in context to everyday reasoning, when it comes to finding resolution to real paradoxes, this recognition is needed. And my own "smart-alec" response is reflecting the arrogance of those insulting Eodnhoj7 with a rhetorical, "Shut up!" when one disapproves of his argument.

Note that this topic has often been raised by many philosophers and logicians of the past (and present) and certainly your reference to Yin/Yang likely relates as well [though not relevant given your context may be likely meant to insult by innuendo to the uncertain foreign connection to something religious or cultural of those using the Yin/yang meme(?)]. Hegel was one who tried to argue the necessity of using some logic that goes beyond the normal rejection of contradiction and what those like Marx used to argue for his "Material Dialectic" with respect to how political history goes through cycles of government evolution. With respect to multivalued logics, quantum mechanics uses this kind of philosophical discussion in trying to make sense of real phenomena. But what gets missed is how the average person lacks an understanding of this and why the OP here is a good opening (re-opening) of the topic.

This topic is also hard to raise even among one's intellectual peers (including friends) where it should matter. The proof of this is similar to how long it took to zero to even be permitted socially in everyday use....as though it were a taboo of respectible etiquette to even speak. Anyone daring to make 'nothing' something worthy of reasonable discussion let alone to permit a hearing for its practicality is itself what likely led to the Dark Ages.

Note there is no doubt that others have abused how or where logic regarding the normal three primary laws of logic get applied. It is why empirical methodology evolved in science. Prior to the dark ages, philosophers of logic, like Euclid or Archemedes, had to defend why one should bother listening to what they had to say because the shortsightedness of people's interests demanded practical immediate consideration.

Galileo's logical arguments that proved the independence of the mass to the acceleration due to gravity was dismissed because the 'empirical' leader, the Pope, was insulted by Galileo's own 'smart-alec' presentation of the logic. It had to take direct presentation by the experiments used to determine the PARTICULAR measure of gravity on Earth that founded the purpose to add empirical methods of appeal. Unfortunately, many today falsely interpret the advent of empiricism as competitively undermining the utility or need for logic other than as a bitch to the appeal of Emperors' superiority.

There is an intentional diminishing of logic to being a kind of 'game' that one cannot be permitted to assert as having meaningful existence in its own right. Math, for instance, is treated as though it is only a kind of arbitrary 'tool' that is only allowed to be used under the care of privileged authorities whom require you to have an apriori respect for 'empirical' pre-appropral. Thus, if you cannot SEE 'nothing' it cannot exist unless it is a cloak worn by the Emperor!

A rule of contradiction that needs to be understood is that IF one comes across it, we have to first dismiss the premises that lead to it in context to the presently assumed Universe, BUT recognize that this is ONLY and 'end' if we can still deny the mischievous premises in all contexts of the same universe of discourse. However, a contradiction CAN exist if some premise is both true and false. This may be a mere illusion and we should still try to repair this by seeking validity that does not lead to contradiction. But there is a process that is needed or called for that can address paradoxes. This CAN be done and why this topic is appropriately argued as I commented above on.

I have been setting up a logical method that can do this without dismissing the relevance of using a rule of rejection of contradiction in normal contexts. There is a difficulty of paradoxes when dealing with infinite or 'zero'-related concepts in logic systems like set theory that are hard to avoid. One way to do this is by seeking an approach to define infinites finitely (quantitatively or 'discretely'). We could have a 'trigger' rule that enables updating of the logic system itself in a similar way that Chompski's "Generative Syntax" is used to update definitions using an empirical approach that doesn't disrespect logic itself, ...for instance.

The argument of the OP plus my own contributions can be summarized as:

Given (X or non-X) as binary exclusive values of truth, should one discover that both are true, this redirects our attention to question whether the Universe of (X or non-X) is itself jointly exhaustive of all the possibilities or if we should require stepping outside of the universe of discourse itself. That is, if we originally assumed the universe of discourse to be divided in a strictly binary way of which one part is X and the other is non-X BUT find that both are 'true', this CAN be valid if we can either add a THIRD factor, say Y, such that

Y = X and not-X

Then the original binary set of 'truth valued', {non-X, X}, is regenerated as {not-X, X, Y}. This 'updates' the system to a higher-level logic that adds a value to its system. This to me is what defines dimensions. For instance, if given ONLY a linear dimension, if we find something that proves to lead us to assert point-X is both true and not-true, this forces us to recognize it as 'valid' if we add a dimension to this. This produces a plane-world that is larger than the original linear one and allows us to have a coordinate that requires two numbers to define.

So my 'smart-alec' argument here now adds HOW you can rationally use contradiction as a function to update the logical system, a type of 'dimensioning'. If you don't require this for some argument, you don't need to address further concern and so can dismiss the premises leading to the contradictions found there. But the simple logic system that acts relatively 'linear', is not sufficient to cover all of reality because nature as a whole doesn't require being 'logically' restricting. Totality has to have NO favoritism to a specific universe's logic and has to be most inclusive. The way to avoid religiously adding particular theories about totality is to assign Totality as having its foundation in absolutely nothing (which coimplies absolutely everything).
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:24 am ......
So my 'smart-alec' argument here now adds HOW you can rationally use contradiction as a function to update the logical system, a type of 'dimensioning'. If you don't require this for some argument, you don't need to address further concern and so can dismiss the premises leading to the contradictions found there. But the simple logic system that acts relatively 'linear', is not sufficient to cover all of reality because nature as a whole doesn't require being 'logically' restricting. Totality has to have NO favoritism to a specific universe's logic and has to be most inclusive. The way to avoid religiously adding particular theories about totality is to assign Totality as having its foundation in absolutely nothing (which coimplies absolutely everything).
My argument against the OP is "contradiction" cannot be 'truth'.
To try to squash the typical belief, "a contradiction per se is always false" is as I claimed is a 'smart-alec' move which is unphilosophical.

As I had stated a contradiction is always false and has its evolutionary significance re survival of the individual[s] and therefrom the species.
Thus to insist [unqualified] on the contradiction "us" [P] is "them" [not-P] [or an enemy is a friend] at the same time in the same sense, is a truth that could be fatal to the survival of the individuals.
Other examples are cases of threats, poison, or 'evil'[P] is good[not-P].

Philosophically, we must recognized that a contradiction is by default and always false within its perspective but then as wisely, we provide for exceptions.
Whilst we acknowledge there are exceptions to the LNC, it is absurd to insist 'contradiction is truth.'
Rather we should discuss the cases of exceptions to the LNC appropriately with clear qualifications i.e. when applicable to other areas of non-classical, non-traditional logic, Many-valued logic, Intuitionistic logic, Paraconsistent logic and other areas where the LNC is not effective.

Trying to be smart-alecs, you and the OP did acknowledge the relevance of the LNC and not qualify the various perspectives at all, but rather simply claim "Contradiction as Truth".
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Scott Mayers »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:41 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:24 am ......
So my 'smart-alec' argument here now adds HOW you can rationally use contradiction as a function to update the logical system, a type of 'dimensioning'. If you don't require this for some argument, you don't need to address further concern and so can dismiss the premises leading to the contradictions found there. But the simple logic system that acts relatively 'linear', is not sufficient to cover all of reality because nature as a whole doesn't require being 'logically' restricting. Totality has to have NO favoritism to a specific universe's logic and has to be most inclusive. The way to avoid religiously adding particular theories about totality is to assign Totality as having its foundation in absolutely nothing (which coimplies absolutely everything).
My argument against the OP is "contradiction" cannot be 'truth'.
To try to squash the typical belief, "a contradiction per se is always false" is as I claimed is a 'smart-alec' move which is unphilosophical.

As I had stated a contradiction is always false and has its evolutionary significance re survival of the individual[s] and therefrom the species.
Thus to insist [unqualified] on the contradiction "us" [P] is "them" [not-P] [or an enemy is a friend] at the same time in the same sense, is a truth that could be fatal to the survival of the individuals.
Other examples are cases of threats, poison, or 'evil'[P] is good[not-P].

Philosophically, we must recognized that a contradiction is by default and always false within its perspective but then as wisely, we provide for exceptions.
Whilst we acknowledge there are exceptions to the LNC, it is absurd to insist 'contradiction is truth.'
Rather we should discuss the cases of exceptions to the LNC appropriately with clear qualifications i.e. when applicable to other areas of non-classical, non-traditional logic, Many-valued logic, Intuitionistic logic, Paraconsistent logic and other areas where the LNC is not effective.

Trying to be smart-alecs, you and the OP did acknowledge the relevance of the LNC and not qualify the various perspectives at all, but rather simply claim "Contradiction as Truth".
Bullshit. You clearly impose something that isn't asserted: that the OP (and my added defence) is against the normal use of the laws within the domain of a specified universe. I've also always argued in defence of the use of the general three laws (Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle).

But note that you happen not to be aware that the laws as interpreted loosely more often than not equivocate the laws (generally expressed in various ways) of Contradiction and Excluded Middle. The fact is that Identity and Contradiction were definition axioms and the "Law of the Excluded Middle" was distinctly about asserting that we require excluding the Contradiction as third option. That many interpret the law of contradiction as "the law of non-contradiction" evolved to make the law demanding exclusion of it redundant. The only reason for three laws is that two are defining the minimal possibilities necessary to logic (Identity and its complement that Contradicts) and the third asserts an assumption that is AT LEAST needed somewhere in a logical system: an exclusion of contradiction.

As such, if you want to be sincere about this topic, what you are defensively reacting to is that you interpreted that the exclusion of contradiction as absolutely non-optional but that the OP is about asserting it is. Although I won't argue for whether Eodnjoh7 actually holds my extended argument in defence of my interpretation of him (and why my note to him about whether he changed his mind from prior arguments I might have had with him), as it stands, it was appropriately argued and you, not he, missed the point when responding to him.

What many logician have noticed is that logic demanding this exclusion is a bias of our human means of arguing within a specific domain and that real paradoxes arise when using more complex logic systems. You seem to recognize this afterthefact from what I wrote (I think?) but are trying to justify your own behavior in light of being proven wrong about your ridicule against this. YOU were further counteracting to my clarifying the points that granted charity to the OP with clarity amid the insults of others and how I ended the post with the mic drop that reflected your prior insults to Eodnjoh7 as null and void. So you are reacting to save face regarding your conduct, not because you do not understand the OP.

Contradiction FOR Human arguments is necessary to exclude. But nature itself apart from our prejudiced perspectives does not preclude it from permitting contradiction. And I pointed out how physical paradoxes act as real instances of 'contradiction'. While dimensioning, for instance, repairs the prior dimension's contradiction, it is STILL contradictory in that prior dimension.

Given a single linear dimension mathematically, if something proves to 'point-to' a specific coordinate yet also away from it, this is a real contradiction OF that line. The resolution that defines the contradiction as being somewhere on the set of points perpendicular to that point, even if it is not literally that point, proves how nature rectifies contradiction in a dynamic way. A coordinate, like (3, 9) is only 'real' with respect to a plane but where the x-axis can be understood as the apriori first dimension, this (3, 9) is interpreted as (3, not-3) using the same pair form but ignoring the y-axis's existence.

(3, not-3) --> (3, y) can then define any set of points perpendicular to the x-axis at 3 but not including 3 itself. This is y = any real number except 3, where x = 3.

This is absolutely rational and necessary. And the only barrier to reasoning this way is to those who cannot understand this and then who demand EXCLUSION of those who dare to speak of this rationally. The same kind of arrogance caused many to also resist the discovery that numbers exist that are 'irrational'. Then later, the same kind of problem occurred when discovering the 'imaginary' number [square root of negative one]. Note that the words "rational" and "real" were both initial restrictions or 'exclusionary' principles that acted as insults of those who dared to suggest irrational or non-real numbers as being more general and respectful of nature.

I'm not against the fact that you mistaken this along with others. Many who abusively use sophistry really DO attempt to borrow the arguments THAT show how to extend logic that includes contradiction. For instance, those who might argue that homeopathy is true but is being misunderstood by comparing their theory to how Galileo was 'doubted' only to be proven wrong later IS using 'sophistry'. Socrates defined those who were selling and teaching practical tactics of deceit using rhetoric over logic as though they were real philosophers, 'sophists', because it implied that they were imposters.

The arguments here or anywhere discussing the philosophical aspects of contradiction in logic here are NOT being 'sophists'. If you believe this, you require proving what and how this debate is intentionally out to deceive others. The 'sophists' of Socrates' day were teachers of 'rhetoric' who were selling how to publically speak so as to win their charges in light of the way they used their open forums and votes of those present to convict others' or to defend themselves if accused. Today, this has evolved into politics and law. The contentious issue isn't whether rhetoric isn't a valid subject but that if one is attempting to misuse its tactics in spite of the actual logic of some particular defence is sound or not.

Your accusations are thus not valid here because the arguments regarding those questioning the foundational laws of logic are sincere topics of philosophic dialect. No one is arguing how one should use contradiction out of context to abusively extend this to ANY particular arguments. Socrates would not dismiss the logical value of discussing the effectiveness of the tactics used by Sophists; rather, he was asserting the misuse of the logic of rhetoric that sophists were selling as being APPLIED in practice as means of manipulation.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:02 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:06 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 5:19 am
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.
1. Potential is actual as potential; potentiality exists as a phenomenon given it defines what an object is. What is potential for a phenomenon exists as defining said actual phenomenon. As defining said phenomenon it is part of its actual states given actuality occurs through potentiality. Potentiality forms actuality and actuality forms potentiality, both are intrinsically connected too and defined through the other.

Rain has the potential to both cause floods and not cause floods; it may flood x but not flood y, or flood y and not x, or flood x and y, or not flood x and y. The potentiality of the flood is determined by further potential contexts determining the outcome, yet these potential contexts are unactualized therefore the potentiality of the rain causing floods shows two opposing things occurring under the same context. This same context is "that which may be".

Dually the potentiality of a crocodile eggs shows both male and female exist simultaneously until the temperature change affects the genders thereby allowing for one to exist. Until this new context of temperature change, both male and female exist simultaneously in its potential state. The very fact that it is male "or" female necessitates the "or" as referencing to contradictory phenomenon existing at the same time before one is selected. "Or" necessitates a connection prior to one event of the "or" dichotomy occurring.

Potentiality is a context, contexts are actual, therefore potentiality is actual given it has limits to what it may or may not be. These limits which define potentiality, as in the potentiality of x is defined by what x may or may not be, necessitates potentiality as an actual phenomenon.

2. If all is relative then all is subject to context thus necessitating the phenomenon of "context" existing by itself. "All is context (ie "relative")" necessitates "context" as singular entity which exists by itself. Any existence of context is relative to other context thus showing context repeating itself in new forms.

3. It was in relation to your statement: "Therefore we must eliminate the term 'difference' from the human vocabulary. The above is valid but not realistic and practical."
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:41 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:24 am ......
So my 'smart-alec' argument here now adds HOW you can rationally use contradiction as a function to update the logical system, a type of 'dimensioning'. If you don't require this for some argument, you don't need to address further concern and so can dismiss the premises leading to the contradictions found there. But the simple logic system that acts relatively 'linear', is not sufficient to cover all of reality because nature as a whole doesn't require being 'logically' restricting. Totality has to have NO favoritism to a specific universe's logic and has to be most inclusive. The way to avoid religiously adding particular theories about totality is to assign Totality as having its foundation in absolutely nothing (which coimplies absolutely everything).
My argument against the OP is "contradiction" cannot be 'truth'.
To try to squash the typical belief, "a contradiction per se is always false" is as I claimed is a 'smart-alec' move which is unphilosophical.

As I had stated a contradiction is always false and has its evolutionary significance re survival of the individual[s] and therefrom the species.
Thus to insist [unqualified] on the contradiction "us" [P] is "them" [not-P] [or an enemy is a friend] at the same time in the same sense, is a truth that could be fatal to the survival of the individuals.
Other examples are cases of threats, poison, or 'evil'[P] is good[not-P].

Philosophically, we must recognized that a contradiction is by default and always false within its perspective but then as wisely, we provide for exceptions.
Whilst we acknowledge there are exceptions to the LNC, it is absurd to insist 'contradiction is truth.'
Rather we should discuss the cases of exceptions to the LNC appropriately with clear qualifications i.e. when applicable to other areas of non-classical, non-traditional logic, Many-valued logic, Intuitionistic logic, Paraconsistent logic and other areas where the LNC is not effective.

Trying to be smart-alecs, you and the OP did acknowledge the relevance of the LNC and not qualify the various perspectives at all, but rather simply claim "Contradiction as Truth".


1. The contradiction of "being" and "nothing" allows a contrast to occur with this contrast necessitating identity. "Being" is defined as "x" because it is not "nothing". "Nothing" is defined as "y" because "nothing" is not "being". Contradiction is opposition, opposition is contrast, contrast is the emergence of one phenomenon from something which it is not. This emergence allows the phenomenon to express itself as a singular phenomenon emerging from its absence. To further explain this a square peg emerges from a square hole with this peg existing in contrast to the hole. The peg is defined by what it is not, ie the hole, and the hole is defined by what it is not, ie the peg. One phenomenon emerges as a singular entity from its absence. P is defined by what it is not, ie -P, therefore emerges from -P. Contrast is identity and identity is a truth.

2. A contradiction united occurs as a paradox. A person who is fat and fit is a paradox. Contradictions thus hold truth values.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 6:05 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:33 am NOTE that the term, "contradiction" literally derives from,

"con-" (with), "-tra-" (third), "diction" (spoken of)

The 'third' here is the "true & false" of "true" OR "false", as exclusively assumed binary options. Truth values are relative to the extent of Universal class you are assuming. Totality is necessarily 'true' by its own perspective of it containing absolutely all. But you, as individuals within it interpret this the opposite BY YOUR OWN independent perspective inside your own 'universe'. As such, you too interpret all that you know about what is both (true & false) as sincere (true) real binary options. If you cannot know it, it is outside your world and thus then gets interpreted as....

..................
Contradiction is what I also argue represents a universal 'force' even if 'force' itself can be simply understood as distinct ordered universes. The 'ordered' universes are those that maintain consistency and thus appear to have causation by our inside perspective. But notice that 'ordered' things imply non-consistent distinctions about states. And as such, this helps prove why Totality itself has to be both consistent and inconsistent to cause our particular Universe's static (consistent concepts) and its dynamic ones, (inconsistencies). And just as 'contradiction' FORCES one to address means to reassert a new consistent state, contradiction still has to be understood as true of our own Universe(s).
...
In both cases re philosophy, what is a 'contradiction' cannot be a 'truth' in relation to the specific purposes they are established for.

The OP is merely engaging in sophistry.

....
Trying to be a smart-alec in trying to justify "Contradiction as Truth" is simply frivolous.
This is not frivolous in context to logic and your trivializing of the OP's position is itself just a rhetorical insult (and 'sophist'icating) of the author of the OP and a form of innoculation against anyone daring to speak of its siginficance without warrant. I saw how you kept ignoring the context in your responses above and know that you do not understand the argument because of it. When others too add to the insult rather than trying to understand, did anyone not notice that Eodnhoj7 didn't appear to be himself insulting in his own responses?

Multivalued logics depend upon these ideas and given that its uses relates to physics, it makes it also a justified point about reality. I personally require this IF anyone is to be able to understand my own theories. While I recognize it is a controversy for many in context to everyday reasoning, when it comes to finding resolution to real paradoxes, this recognition is needed. And my own "smart-alec" response is reflecting the arrogance of those insulting Eodnhoj7 with a rhetorical, "Shut up!" when one disapproves of his argument.

Note that this topic has often been raised by many philosophers and logicians of the past (and present) and certainly your reference to Yin/Yang likely relates as well [though not relevant given your context may be likely meant to insult by innuendo to the uncertain foreign connection to something religious or cultural of those using the Yin/yang meme(?)]. Hegel was one who tried to argue the necessity of using some logic that goes beyond the normal rejection of contradiction and what those like Marx used to argue for his "Material Dialectic" with respect to how political history goes through cycles of government evolution. With respect to multivalued logics, quantum mechanics uses this kind of philosophical discussion in trying to make sense of real phenomena. But what gets missed is how the average person lacks an understanding of this and why the OP here is a good opening (re-opening) of the topic.

This topic is also hard to raise even among one's intellectual peers (including friends) where it should matter. The proof of this is similar to how long it took to zero to even be permitted socially in everyday use....as though it were a taboo of respectible etiquette to even speak. Anyone daring to make 'nothing' something worthy of reasonable discussion let alone to permit a hearing for its practicality is itself what likely led to the Dark Ages.

Note there is no doubt that others have abused how or where logic regarding the normal three primary laws of logic get applied. It is why empirical methodology evolved in science. Prior to the dark ages, philosophers of logic, like Euclid or Archemedes, had to defend why one should bother listening to what they had to say because the shortsightedness of people's interests demanded practical immediate consideration.

Galileo's logical arguments that proved the independence of the mass to the acceleration due to gravity was dismissed because the 'empirical' leader, the Pope, was insulted by Galileo's own 'smart-alec' presentation of the logic. It had to take direct presentation by the experiments used to determine the PARTICULAR measure of gravity on Earth that founded the purpose to add empirical methods of appeal. Unfortunately, many today falsely interpret the advent of empiricism as competitively undermining the utility or need for logic other than as a bitch to the appeal of Emperors' superiority.

There is an intentional diminishing of logic to being a kind of 'game' that one cannot be permitted to assert as having meaningful existence in its own right. Math, for instance, is treated as though it is only a kind of arbitrary 'tool' that is only allowed to be used under the care of privileged authorities whom require you to have an apriori respect for 'empirical' pre-appropral. Thus, if you cannot SEE 'nothing' it cannot exist unless it is a cloak worn by the Emperor!

A rule of contradiction that needs to be understood is that IF one comes across it, we have to first dismiss the premises that lead to it in context to the presently assumed Universe, BUT recognize that this is ONLY and 'end' if we can still deny the mischievous premises in all contexts of the same universe of discourse. However, a contradiction CAN exist if some premise is both true and false. This may be a mere illusion and we should still try to repair this by seeking validity that does not lead to contradiction. But there is a process that is needed or called for that can address paradoxes. This CAN be done and why this topic is appropriately argued as I commented above on.

I have been setting up a logical method that can do this without dismissing the relevance of using a rule of rejection of contradiction in normal contexts. There is a difficulty of paradoxes when dealing with infinite or 'zero'-related concepts in logic systems like set theory that are hard to avoid. One way to do this is by seeking an approach to define infinites finitely (quantitatively or 'discretely'). We could have a 'trigger' rule that enables updating of the logic system itself in a similar way that Chompski's "Generative Syntax" is used to update definitions using an empirical approach that doesn't disrespect logic itself, ...for instance.

The argument of the OP plus my own contributions can be summarized as:

Given (X or non-X) as binary exclusive values of truth, should one discover that both are true, this redirects our attention to question whether the Universe of (X or non-X) is itself jointly exhaustive of all the possibilities or if we should require stepping outside of the universe of discourse itself. That is, if we originally assumed the universe of discourse to be divided in a strictly binary way of which one part is X and the other is non-X BUT find that both are 'true', this CAN be valid if we can either add a THIRD factor, say Y, such that

Y = X and not-X

Then the original binary set of 'truth valued', {non-X, X}, is regenerated as {not-X, X, Y}. This 'updates' the system to a higher-level logic that adds a value to its system. This to me is what defines dimensions. For instance, if given ONLY a linear dimension, if we find something that proves to lead us to assert point-X is both true and not-true, this forces us to recognize it as 'valid' if we add a dimension to this. This produces a plane-world that is larger than the original linear one and allows us to have a coordinate that requires two numbers to define.

So my 'smart-alec' argument here now adds HOW you can rationally use contradiction as a function to update the logical system, a type of 'dimensioning'. If you don't require this for some argument, you don't need to address further concern and so can dismiss the premises leading to the contradictions found there. But the simple logic system that acts relatively 'linear', is not sufficient to cover all of reality because nature as a whole doesn't require being 'logically' restricting. Totality has to have NO favoritism to a specific universe's logic and has to be most inclusive. The way to avoid religiously adding particular theories about totality is to assign Totality as having its foundation in absolutely nothing (which coimplies absolutely everything).
1. From what I have read and understood I stand in agreement with you. With the introduction of "Y" as a third medial element both X and -X coexist. A simple example of this is Man, as P, and Woman, as -P, both existing simultaneously under the third element of "Human".

2. In agreement with "totality" as having its foundation in "nothing".
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 7:27 pm
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.
If all is rooted in contradiction then a respect for all being is necessitated given being occurs through opposition; Both sides of a coin are necessary for the coin to exist.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:47 am 1. From what I have read and understood I stand in agreement with you. With the introduction of "Y" as a third medial element both X and -X coexist. A simple example of this is Man, as P, and Woman, as -P, both existing simultaneously under the third element of "Human".

2. In agreement with "totality" as having its foundation in "nothing".
I am giving your earlier post a pass but they could be reduce to the above point.

Note again 'same sense',
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
When you add the third element, you are changing the sense [context] and that is why the LNC do not apply if in a different sense.

Btw, long ago I was also trying to be a smart-alec in countering whenever anyone propose, this cannot be that or that cannot be this.
It is good trait that we do not simply agree with whatever is proposed or is traditionalized.
But in the case of 'contradiction' and the LNC, it is foolish in trying to outsmart this principle in absolute terms.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:57 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 7:27 pm
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.
If all is rooted in contradiction then a respect for all being is necessitated given being occurs through opposition; Both sides of a coin are necessary for the coin to exist.
Q.E.D

Why are you telling me this?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:49 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:47 am 1. From what I have read and understood I stand in agreement with you. With the introduction of "Y" as a third medial element both X and -X coexist. A simple example of this is Man, as P, and Woman, as -P, both existing simultaneously under the third element of "Human".

2. In agreement with "totality" as having its foundation in "nothing".
I am giving your earlier post a pass but they could be reduce to the above point.

Note again 'same sense',
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
When you add the third element, you are changing the sense [context] and that is why the LNC do not apply if in a different sense.

Btw, long ago I was also trying to be a smart-alec in countering whenever anyone propose, this cannot be that or that cannot be this.
It is good trait that we do not simply agree with whatever is proposed or is traditionalized.
But in the case of 'contradiction' and the LNC, it is foolish in trying to outsmart this principle in absolute terms.
1. Both +P and -P share P as a constant ("+" is implied in P as a positive value given P exists.) therefore P is the third element of +P and -P. The LNC is triadic. Both +P and -P equate through P.

2. Another way of expressing P and -P is a square peg and and square hole, both P and -P share the same context of "square". Two opposing phenomenon exist under the same context just as a square peg and square hole exist under the same context of square. Both the peg and the hole equate through "square". The "same sense" in the LNC is the same as context give "sense" is a context. To sense a phenomenon is to observe it from a specific angle, a specific angle is a context. The third element is the context as "the same sense" is the third element through which P and -P are observed. The LNC is triadic.

3. "The same sense" is undefined and is assumed. "Sense" is an angle of awareness and given it is angle of awareness it is a context. Multiple contradictory things can be observed under the same context, ie a "skinny fat person" (a person who is slim but has roles of fat). To say "same sense" is to say "same context". The third element, or "context", is both P and -P connected and through this connection equivocation occurs. P and -P are both connected through "sense" or rather "context".
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Contradiction as Truth

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:41 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:57 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 7:27 pm
All these people preoccupying themselves with knowing what they are talking about - none of them can tell you why they are talking about it.
If all is rooted in contradiction then a respect for all being is necessitated given being occurs through opposition; Both sides of a coin are necessary for the coin to exist.
Q.E.D

Why are you telling me this?
Because you said "none of them can tell you why they are talking about it" and I am telling you why I am talking about it.
Post Reply