Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.
You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration. Even the instant of swallowing food is a duration of time. There is no action which does not occur over a duration of time thus something may both be itself and not be itself at the same time considering time is a length.
You cannot seperate time from a duration considering even an "instant", such as a clock hand moving a second, is a duration. Even the instant of swallowing food is a duration of time. There is no action which does not occur over a duration of time thus something may both be itself and not be itself at the same time considering time is a length.
Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
Congratulations. You have caught up to Plato and Heraclitus. Only ±2000 years to go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_no ... Heraclitus
The LNC is ambiguous because it pre-supposes a well-defined notion of "sameness".
propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time
Is A the same as A? It depends on who you ask.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_no ... Heraclitus
The LNC is ambiguous because it pre-supposes a well-defined notion of "sameness".
propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time
Is A the same as A? It depends on who you ask.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
If you ask me, A resembles A but what does Leibniz say about identical objects?Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:35 am Congratulations. You have caught up to Plato and Heraclitus. Only ±2000 years to go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_no ... Heraclitus
The LNC is ambiguous because it pre-supposes a well-defined notion of "sameness".
propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time
Is A the same as A? It depends on who you ask.
Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
The identity of indiscernables is a non-starter as a definition/conception. It's uttrerly incoherent.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:07 pm If you ask me, A resembles A but what does Leibniz say about identical objects?
If two objects share all of their properties you still have two objects.
Ship of Theseus and all that jazz.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
A and A are not identical because they don't occupy the same space.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:58 pmThe identity of indiscernables is a non-starter as a definition/conception. It's uttrerly incoherent.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:07 pm If you ask me, A resembles A but what does Leibniz say about identical objects?
If two objects share all of their properties you still have two objects.
Ship of Theseus and all that jazz.
Last edited by jayjacobus on Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
I agree, but Liebnitz wouldnt. Neither would most Mathematicians.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:41 pm A and A are not identical because they don't occupy the same space.
If you turn a blind eye to location within the coordinate system they share all other properties.
But then 1 = 1 is false. And Mathematics falters.
Equational reasoning is grounded upon the falsehood that A = A.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
If the second A has the same atoms as the first A, then the second A IS the first A but in a different position but that is impossible because atoms cannot be at two places at one time.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:44 pmI agree, but Liebnitz wouldnt. Neither would most Mathematicians.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:41 pm A and A are not identical because they don't occupy the same space.
If you turn a blind eye to location within the coordinate system they share all other properties.
But then 1 = 1 is false. And Mathematics falters.
Equational reasoning is grounded upon the falsehood that A = A.
1+1 is not false because both 1's have identical meanings.
Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
1=1 is the assertion that 1 is the same as (identical to) 1.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:58 pm 1+1 is not false because both 1's have identical meanings.
You just said that's false because they occopy different positions in space.
Are you recanting now?
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
Physically identical is not the same as identical meaning.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:13 pm1=1 is the assertion that 1 is the same as (identical to) 1.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:58 pm 1+1 is not false because both 1's have identical meanings.
You just said that's false because they occopy different positions in space.
Are you recanting now?
You seem to think that a representation does not denote what it refers to. .
Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
"Physialy identical" is an incoherent notion. Physicists only talk about indistinguishability.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:21 pm Physically identical is not the same identical meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_logic
What is it that you think the symbol 1 denotes; refers to; or represents?jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:21 pm You seem to think that a representation does not denote what it refers to. .
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
You think it is only physical and has no meaning. Asking me to explain denote is not going to change your mindSkepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:33 pm"Physialy identical" is an incoherent notion. Physicists only talk about indistinguishability.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:21 pm Physically identical is not the same identical meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_logic
What is it that you think the symbol 1 denotes; refers to; or represents?jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:21 pm You seem to think that a representation does not denote what it refers to. .
You are not the 1 who understands what I write.
Last edited by jayjacobus on Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
You are just stalling.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:42 pm You think it is only physical and has no meaning. Asking me to explain denote is not going to change your mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem
Numbers don't exist. They are just notation. 1 doesn't mean anything.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
You are not the 1 who understands symbols.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:47 pmYou are just stalling.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:42 pm You think it is only physical and has no meaning. Asking me to explain denote is not going to change your mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem
Numbers don't exist. They are just notation. 1 doesn't mean anything.
You don't mean anything except how to be annoying.
Good bye!
Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
I am pretty sure you don't even understand what it means to understand.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:55 pm You are not the 1 who understands symbols.
You don't mean anything.
-
- Posts: 12950
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False
You referenced but did not read fully, i.e.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:35 am Congratulations. You have caught up to Plato and Heraclitus. Only ±2000 years to go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_no ... Heraclitus
The LNC is ambiguous because it pre-supposes a well-defined notion of "sameness".
propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time
Is A the same as A? It depends on who you ask.
"Unfortunately, so little remains of Heraclitus' aphorisms that not much about his philosophy can be said with certainty."
Due to the above limitations your reference cannot be credible.
What is most critical within the LNC is the criteria 'same sense'.
If one can counter the LNC within the same time [re formal logic], you are not likely to counter it within the same sense.
I believe what most people misunderstand is the LNC is one of the Three Laws of Logic which is confined to Traditional and Formal logic and not to other forms of logic, e.g. fuzzy, intuitional logic and others.
Therefore the LNC is not an absolute Law of all Logic.
As Kant stated, formal logic has its advantage merely based on its limitations.
Therefore the LNC is only valid within its defined framework.
Nevertheless the OP is countering the LNC within its framework but unsuccessfully due to his ignorance of the criteria of 'same sense', i.e. trying to be a smart-alec but exposed as a smart-fool.
So one should not fool around with the LNC within its stipulated framework, i.e. applicable to traditional and formal logic only, else it will make one a fool.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.