Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

[Skepdick]

That's irrelevant. The reason the foundations discussing logic don't speak of contradiction as merely time-related is due to my example above regarding how one can reinterpret one's perspective of a contradiction by extending domains regardless of whether the issue is time or not. The example about 'existence' I presented was to point out that there are unspoken assumptions that often get missed when something appears to be contradictory. Because logic is more universal than particular subsets or extensional topics, 'concurrent' events limit one to assuming contradictions are only about time. You can have contradictions without concerning time.

Also, 'contradiction' doesn't have to be understood as an 'error' or confusion regarding the foundations of logic, only the description of something understood to have discrete binary options to be treated as conflicting when you introduce a third option that denies the meaning of the exclusion. The 'laws' of logic foundationally are only a way to begin with clearly defined concepts, the least of which is whether something is or is not included in some universal class regardless of what that class is defined as.

I am pointing him towards an empirical body of knowledge pertaining to “concurrency”. It has a small section on logic

You are babbling about stuff.

One of those things is certainly “irrelevant”

Yes, you are 'pointing' him away from your burden to argue your views independently. I think Google does a good job of that. There is no need to point one to others' views elsewhere. And so you are doing the 'babbling' here.

You dismiss facts and demand opinions.

Strange creature

[Speakpigeon]

"Contradiction" literally comes from the etymological meaning, "with a third option asserted". ['con' with, 'tra' three, 'diction' stated thing] That something can be understood to be 'true and false' is this third of discrete possibilities.

The prefix Contra- comes from the Latin contrā, meaning against (see kom in Indo-European roots).

Contradiction litereally means "speak contrary to".

Contrary comes from the Middle English contrarie, from Anglo-Norman, from Latin contrārius, contrā, against.

So, nothing to do with "with a third option asserted" as you claim.

You would need to open a dictionary more often, but I guess you are probably not even interested in truth.

Does this help so far?

Not at all. This is misinformation.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Dear logicians!

I think I’ve come up with something beyond the Law of Noncontradiction. Unfortunately, I’m not a trained philosopher, let alone a logician. I’m not sure whether I’m right or wrong, or rather, how wrong I am and how I am wrong. Anyway, here is what I’ve been thinking about.

In Plato’s Republic Socrates says “It is obvious that the same thing will never or suffer opposites in the same respect in relation to the same thing and at the same time.”(Republic 4:436b) Aristotle writes, “The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect.”(Metaphysics G, 3, 1005b18-20)

These are thought of as advocating the law of noncontradiction. Admitting of course what they say, in my opinion, there can be another kind of contradiction: It is that you cannot do two things at the same time, be they contradictory or not to one another. The so-called law of noncontradiction is just one case of it. To be sure, it cannot be true that you can take a step forward with both the right and the left legs at the same time. If you are using the right leg, to take a step forward, then you are not using the left one, and vice versa. To simultaneously use them both is against the law of noncontradiction, which is why you never can make it.

However, it seems to me that it also cannot be the case that you can take a step forward with the right leg twice at the same time. This is because you can use your right leg only once at a time. To use the right leg does not necessarily contradict with the use of the right leg. On the contrary, they are completely the same thing. No inconsistency can be found between the use of the right leg and the use of the right leg. Regardless, on no account can you afford to do that.

So, at least in some cases, I think you can say that in the world there can be found two facts that cannot concur, happening simultaneously, which might be named the Law of Nonconcurrence or whatever, one of which you call the Law of Noncontradiction, and the other the law of Nonrecurrence or something like that.

Thinking along these lines, the Law of Noncontradiction is not the ultimate law but can be derived from the Law of Nonconcurrence, just as the Law of Nonrecurrence is.

Could any one of you be kind enough to tell or teach me how I am wrong and/or how wrong I am?

The law of contradiction concerns the mind and the way the human mind works. What you suggest concerns the material world. Of course, the brain could not "do" one mind thinking something and another mind thinking something else. So the "laws of thought" probably originate in the nature of the material world but nobody is going to explain how exactly the two are related. The law of contradiction is simple and immediately understandable and applicable. Trying to derive the law of contradiction from the material world isn't really a practical option. Maybe later.
EB

[wtf]

Trying to derive the law of contradiction from the material world isn't really a practical option.

We are spirits in the material world. And I am a material girl.

[Immanuel Can]

Either the law of identity is false in which case P=-P or the law of non contradiction is false in which case P=-P. Either way P=-P and P=/=-P simultaneously. The same can be observed where 1=1 but 1 may equal a horse or a jet. 1=1 and 1=/=1 simultaneously.

P isn't -P. It never proposed to be, and it's not even involved in the law of non-contradiction.

P = P.

-P = -P.

The presence of a horse and the lack of a horse are opposites, not identical. You think that because they both refer to a "horse" they're the same?

So your proof does not falsify, or even question, either law.

[Immanuel Can]

there can be another kind of contradiction: It is that you cannot do two things at the same time, be they contradictory or not to one another. The so-called law of noncontradiction is just one case of it. To be sure, it cannot be true that you can take a step forward with both the right and the left legs at the same time. If you are using the right leg, to take a step forward, then you are not using the left one, and vice versa. To simultaneously use them both is against the law of noncontradiction, which is why you never can make it.

You can take a step forward with both feet at the same time, without creating a contradiction. But you'll fall down, unless you grab something with your arms while you do it.

You can do a lot of things simultaneously, so long as they are not genuine opposites. You cannot simultaneously take a step and not take a step. Either you did, or you did not. That is a case of the law of non-contradiction, because to not-step is the genuine opposite of to step. But for no other reason.

I see no "beyond" to the law of non-contradiction here.

[Eodnhoj7]

Either the law of identity is false in which case P=-P or the law of non contradiction is false in which case P=-P. Either way P=-P and P=/=-P simultaneously. The same can be observed where 1=1 but 1 may equal a horse or a jet. 1=1 and 1=/=1 simultaneously.

P isn't -P. It never proposed to be, and it's not even involved in the law of non-contradiction.

P = P.

-P = -P.

The presence of a horse and the lack of a horse are opposites, not identical. You think that because they both refer to a "horse" they're the same?

So your proof does not falsify, or even question, either law.

The law of identity being falsified results in a contradiction in terms. This contradiction occurs when the laws are applied to themselves in which case P=P or P=-P occurs thus resulting in P=-P by default.


Dually a form and absence of form can both equivocate much in the same manner a square which is full and a square which is empty both equivocate through form. The square full of x material results in x material as a square. The empty square results in the same form of the square. The empty and full squares both result and equivocate through the square shape.

[Immanuel Can]

P isn't -P. It never proposed to be, and it's not even involved in the law of non-contradiction.

P = P.

-P = -P.

The presence of a horse and the lack of a horse are opposites, not identical. You think that because they both refer to a "horse" they're the same?

So your proof does not falsify, or even question, either law.

The law of identity being falsified results in a contradiction in terms. This contradiction occurs when the laws are applied to themselves in which case P=P or P=-P occurs thus resulting in P=-P by default.


Dually a form and absence of form can both equivocate much in the same manner a square which is full and a square which is empty both equivocate through form. The square full of x material results in x material as a square. The empty square results in the same form of the square. The empty and full squares both result and equivocate through the square shape.

I was right.

The error you're making is to think that the presence of a horse (P) and the lack of a horse (-P) are the same. And your reasoning is that the word "horse" appears in both. That's a very obvious error, as any number of real cases, and any number of operations, and even just ordinary horse sense can easily show.

There is simply no defeater for the law of non-contradiction there. If they were the same," beggars would ride," as the saying goes.

[Eodnhoj7]

P isn't -P. It never proposed to be, and it's not even involved in the law of non-contradiction.

P = P.

-P = -P.

The presence of a horse and the lack of a horse are opposites, not identical. You think that because they both refer to a "horse" they're the same?

So your proof does not falsify, or even question, either law.

The law of identity being falsified results in a contradiction in terms. This contradiction occurs when the laws are applied to themselves in which case P=P or P=-P occurs thus resulting in P=-P by default.


Dually a form and absence of form can both equivocate much in the same manner a square which is full and a square which is empty both equivocate through form. The square full of x material results in x material as a square. The empty square results in the same form of the square. The empty and full squares both result and equivocate through the square shape.

I was right.

The error you're making is to think that the presence of a horse (P) and the lack of a horse (-P) are the same. And your reasoning is that the word "horse" appears in both. That's a very obvious error, as any number of real cases, and any number of operations, and even just ordinary horse sense can easily show.

There is simply no defeater for the law of non-contradiction there. If they were the same," beggars would ride," as the saying goes.

But in the course of history beggars do ride. P and -P are both symmetrical opposites to eachother thus necessitating a middle term. An empty glass and a full glass both show the glass form as constant. The empty space is in the shape of the glass. The material in the glass shows the shape of the glass. In both cases the shape of the glass is present. For further example a horse being present results in the form of the horse in contrast to something else. The horse not being present shows an emptiness in the contrast in the form of the horse. The horse being present and the horse not being present both shows the form of the horse.

[RCSaunders]

P isn't -P. It never proposed to be, and it's not even involved in the law of non-contradiction.

P = P.

-P = -P.

The presence of a horse and the lack of a horse are opposites, not identical. You think that because they both refer to a "horse" they're the same?

So your proof does not falsify, or even question, either law.

The law of identity being falsified results in a contradiction in terms. This contradiction occurs when the laws are applied to themselves in which case P=P or P=-P occurs thus resulting in P=-P by default.


Dually a form and absence of form can both equivocate much in the same manner a square which is full and a square which is empty both equivocate through form. The square full of x material results in x material as a square. The empty square results in the same form of the square. The empty and full squares both result and equivocate through the square shape.

I was right.

The error you're making is to think that the presence of a horse (P) and the lack of a horse (-P) are the same. And your reasoning is that the word "horse" appears in both. That's a very obvious error, as any number of real cases, and any number of operations, and even just ordinary horse sense can easily show.

There is simply no defeater for the law of non-contradiction there. If they were the same," beggars would ride," as the saying goes.

My Grandmother's version was, "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride," but I can see how it would also be true if horses and non-horses were the same thing.

I find the arguments of anti-rationalists (anyone who denies the efficacy of reason), like Eodnhoj7, extremely entertaining. I can only imagine they must believe if they can prove nothing can be proved they can get away with anything. Just wish I could be there when reality catches up with them.

Go ahead and chew on those castor beans. There is ricin in them, but that's the same no ricin in them. What's to worry?

[Immanuel Can]

But in the course of history beggars do ride.

Never heard the saying, I'm guessing? The point is this: a beggar who wants a horse, but hasn't got one, still can't ride. The wanting doesn't count: having a horse and wishing for one are not the same thing.

P and -P are both symmetrical opposites to eachother thus necessitating a middle term.

Incorrect. "Middle term" is a technical word for the transition term in a syllogism. The law of non-contradiction isn't a syllogism, but rather a premise upon which all syllogisms depend.

An empty glass and a full glass both show the glass form as constant.

No, they don't. They only use the same word, "glass." But while having a glass of water requires a glass, having no glass of water does not. It uses no "form".

The empty space is in the shape of the glass.

No again. It's just an idiomatic expression meaning "a few ounces of water."

In both cases the shape of the glass is present.

No again. There need be no glass at all for one to truly say, "I have no glass of water." You can have no-glass AND no-water, just the lack of a drink.

Sorry...your alleged critique of the law of non-contradiction just doesn't work. To make it work, you would have to prove something like, "A glass of water" can exist and not exist, using "exist" to refer to exactly the same property, at exactly the same time. And that simply cannot be done.

[Immanuel Can]

Go ahead and chew on those castor beans. There is ricin in them, but that's the same no ricin in them. What's to worry?

That's hilarious, and much to-the-point.

Yes, what Eodnhoj was saying were true, she/he would have to think that poisoned food and non-poisoned meant exactly the same. That's what I mean about common sense being enough to debunk that sort of hogwash.

Well, Eodnhoj: what do you say?

[Eodnhoj7]

The law of identity being falsified results in a contradiction in terms. This contradiction occurs when the laws are applied to themselves in which case P=P or P=-P occurs thus resulting in P=-P by default.


Dually a form and absence of form can both equivocate much in the same manner a square which is full and a square which is empty both equivocate through form. The square full of x material results in x material as a square. The empty square results in the same form of the square. The empty and full squares both result and equivocate through the square shape.

I was right.

The error you're making is to think that the presence of a horse (P) and the lack of a horse (-P) are the same. And your reasoning is that the word "horse" appears in both. That's a very obvious error, as any number of real cases, and any number of operations, and even just ordinary horse sense can easily show.

There is simply no defeater for the law of non-contradiction there. If they were the same," beggars would ride," as the saying goes.

My Grandmother's version was, "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride," but I can see how it would also be true if horses and non-horses were the same thing.

I find the arguments of anti-rationalists (anyone who denies the efficacy of reason), like Eodnhoj7, extremely entertaining. I can only imagine they must believe if they can prove nothing can be proved they can get away with anything. Just wish I could be there when reality catches up with them.

Go ahead and chew on those castor beans. There is ricin in them, but that's the same no ricin in them. What's to worry?

Void is the act of change from one phenomenom to another, change can be proven through the divergence of terms into further terms.

I already stated three laws for logic elsewhere (thus stating logic and reason do exist):

Inherent void
Inherent middle
Inherent context.

So you are wrong in claiming me as an anti rationalist.

[Eodnhoj7]

Go ahead and chew on those castor beans. There is ricin in them, but that's the same no ricin in them. What's to worry?

That's hilarious, and much to-the-point.

Yes, what Eodnhoj was saying were true, she/he would have to think that poisoned food and non-poisoned meant exactly the same. That's what I mean about common sense being enough to debunk that sort of hogwash.

Well, Eodnhoj: what do you say?

I say the food is a middle term through which both poison and non poison are defined through their opposition. The opposition of phenomenon necessitates both having a common middle term through which they react. This middle term is the constant form which underlies seemingly opposite phenomenon.

[Eodnhoj7]

But in the course of history beggars do ride.

Never heard the saying, I'm guessing? The point is this: a beggar who wants a horse, but hasn't got one, still can't ride. The wanting doesn't count: having a horse and wishing for one are not the same thing.

The beggar still rides the horse in respect to his thoughts.

P and -P are both symmetrical opposites to eachother thus necessitating a middle term.

Incorrect. "Middle term" is a technical word for the transition term in a syllogism. The law of non-contradiction isn't a syllogism, but rather a premise upon which all syllogisms depend.

False, as the glass being both full and empty necessitates it as a middle form which underlies seemingly opposite phenomenon. They equivocate through the middle term but without it do not equivocate.

An empty glass and a full glass both show the glass form as constant.

No, they don't. They only use the same word, "glass." But while having a glass of water requires a glass, having no glass of water does not. It uses no "form".

Empirically the glass form exists in both examples as an inherent middle. Not having a glass full of water results in -P and not having a glass at all still results in -P. Having no glass full is still a subset of -P thus +P and -P both equivocate through P where P is the middle terms which allows seemingly opposite phenomena to connect.

The empty space is in the shape of the glass.

No again. It's just an idiomatic expression meaning "a few ounces of water."

False, the empty space of the glass is an isomorphism of the glass.

In both cases the shape of the glass is present.

No again. There need be no glass at all for one to truly say, "I have no glass of water." You can have no-glass AND no-water, just the lack of a drink.

But the example is one of a full and empty glass.

Sorry...your alleged critique of the law of non-contradiction just doesn't work. To make it work, you would have to prove something like, "A glass of water" can exist and not exist, using "exist" to refer to exactly the same property, at exactly the same time. And that simply cannot be done.

False a glass filled half way with water is simultaneously full and empty.