Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

[Eodnhoj7]

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?

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

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

Inherent void
Inherent middle
Inherent context.

3. Proof is a body of facts, a body of facts is the connection of facts, proof is thus a connection of facts. The phenomenon of connectivity exists as beyond proof as a distinct phenomena which allows for proof to exist but as beyond proof is not limited to proof.

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

[Immanuel Can]

I say the food is a middle term

Then you don't actually have any idea at all what a "middle term" is.

[Immanuel Can]

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

Now you don't know what the words "full" and "empty" mean.

[Eodnhoj7]

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

Now you don't know what the words "full" and "empty" mean.

Then tell me what they mean.

[Eodnhoj7]

I say the food is a middle term

Then you don't actually have any idea at all what a "middle term" is.

Food is the common underlying term which is repeated across the assertions "non poisoned food" and "poisoned food".

[Immanuel Can]

Food is the common underlying term which is repeated across the assertions "non poisoned food" and "poisoned food".

So?

[RCSaunders]

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.

As far as I know, I'm not obliged to use your private meaning of words. I certainly don't care if you want to call your absurd explanations, "logic," or, "reason," but I don't, and anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction is not rational. Reason is the process of non-contradictory identification. It was not meant as an epithet, only a description.

[wtf]

anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction is not rational.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logi ... onsistent/

[Eodnhoj7]

Food is the common underlying term which is repeated across the assertions "non poisoned food" and "poisoned food".

So?

Thus two seemingly opposing phenomenon are connected by a middle term.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

As far as I know, I'm not obliged to use your private meaning of words. I certainly don't care if you want to call your absurd explanations, "logic," or, "reason," but I don't, and anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction is not rational. Reason is the process of non-contradictory identification. It was not meant as an epithet, only a description.

Repeat.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

As far as I know, I'm not obliged to use your private meaning of words. I certainly don't care if you want to call your absurd explanations, "logic," or, "reason," but I don't, and anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction is not rational. Reason is the process of non-contradictory identification. It was not meant as an epithet, only a description.

There is no universally agreed upon definition for what logic and reason are or are not. To agree upon one set of definitions as to what logic is is to create an opposing account of what logic is not. A contradiction occurs through this localization of what logic is out of the vast web of definitions which exist out there.

The Law of Non Contradiction is an assertion subject to infinite regress where P=/=-P results in -P equivalent to a slippery slope of definitions such as Q, R, S, etc. An example of this would be dog and not dog. Not dog equates to an infinity of things such as cat, shower, car, etc..

Dually P and -P are subject to the law of identity thus necessitating one expression of the law of identity as not equal to another. This absence of equality amidst various expressions of the law of identity necessitates a contradiction in identity itself.

[Immanuel Can]

Food is the common underlying term which is repeated across the assertions "non poisoned food" and "poisoned food".

So?

Thus two seemingly opposing phenomenon are connected by a middle term.

So?

Middle terms are for syllogisms (that's basic Logic 101). What's your syllogism here, if you have a "middle term"?

Or try it by basic grammar. You have no predication here. All you have is a noun, "food." What are you trying to predicate of "food"?

[Eodnhoj7]

So?

Thus two seemingly opposing phenomenon are connected by a middle term.

So?

Middle terms are for syllogisms (that's basic Logic 101). What's your syllogism here, if you have a "middle term"?

Or try it by basic grammar. You have no predication here. All you have is a noun, "food." What are you trying to predicate of "food"?

A middle term, defined through the context of usage presented, is an assertion which underlies multiple assertions. It is an assertion which is repeated. Keep in mind I am talking about all assertions.

Both "poison" and "non poison" stem from "food is". Any noun that stands alone as singular references an "as isness" to ths phenomenon thus is implicitly followed by "is".

[Immanuel Can]

A middle term, defined through the context of usage presented, is an assertion which underlies multiple assertions. It is an assertion which is repeated. Keep in mind I am talking about all assertions.

This is pure hogwash. You don't know what a "middle term" is.

Both "poison" and "non poison" stem from "food is". Any noun that stands alone as singular references an "as isness" to ths phenomenon thus is implicitly followed by "is".

Not even comprehensible.

[RCSaunders]

anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction is not rational.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logi ... onsistent/

Why bother. Whatever it says, it's opposite is also true. If you believe that nonsense, I'll take your word for it.