Whatever the diversity and difference in reality, they all can be reducible and reconcilable to 'stardust'. So give me any distinction and difference I can make them the same in various context down to 'stardust' or the Big Bang and back to the subject.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:12 pm1. 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.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:49 amI am giving your earlier post a pass but they could be reduce to the above point.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".
Note again 'same sense',
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.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
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.
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".
But that is not the purpose for the term 'contradiction' and LNC within any philosophy.
- Contradiction:
a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another.
"the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
a situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
"the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
"the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"