Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

[Sculptor]

You gave an example of interpreting a variable as a constant. I used "address" and "value" (or "content in that address"). An address acts as the name of the variable that you can 'fill' in with multiple possibilities. This acts similar to what a contradiction stands for given it CAN hold more than one unique value. This address NAME is on the left and the VALUE is on the right. Position order matters unless said otherwise. So

"P = P" means that the left side symbol P has the ARBITRARY meaning to refer to the value on the right side P as its content or meaning, AT THE LEAST! [Assignment arbitrary]; But in the logic rules, the meaning of '=' is actually misleading and is "logically equivalent" (≡ is the usual symbol). So you are confusing the assignment meaning which references its content. That is, "P = P" can be "P = 93". This is an assignment that 'equates' the value to be the content meaning of "P" as an address.

Identity law is more properly,

P ≡ P

But when writing we assume the context and can forget this. So let's use the double equals (==) for (≡). Then the rule is

P == P

but

P = P would assign whatever it contains, even the name 'P' itself as just such a possibility.

Whatever something is, it represents the most PERFECT symbol (or model) of itself. So

P == P can be a way of saying that you can assign 'P' like this,
P = P, then add that this is also reversible. That is, if the Right side P is anything, its best representative of its meaning would be just itself. So P == P means that the literal 'P' will always at least represent itself, for whatever meaning it is given. The MEANING here stays CONSTANT.

A memory in the computer can have ROM (fixed memory data) that contains some fixed value, like zero or one. In RAM, these can be assigned constant which means that nothing in the running program could change it. ALL others are variable (can 'vary' in value or content).

Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.

fuck-identity.png

If P==P is false then P==-P can be observed as true as it necessitates total equality as bunk.

You are talking complete bollocks

[Sculptor]

1. All propositions are grounded in empirical phenomenon, even an imaginary phenomenon is grounded in the convergence of two or more empirical phenomenon. As grounded in empirical phenomenon the law of logic are grounded in what is sensed.

False.
Propositions can be purely a priori.

2. Time is a duration thus along one duration (time line).....

This is not coherent.

3. If one color cannot exist without being part of another color then two different (opposing) things exist simultaneously as one. P, the color, and -P , the absence of P as another color, coexist. Color is inseparable from light.

What do you think a colour is? There are no distinct colours as distinct from other colours. Colours are qualia, and are subjective representations of differences in the wavelengths of perceived light entering the eye. Spectrums are a brain state and not a true empirical representation.
Wvelengths are not atomistic or digital, wavelengths are analogue and the differences in tone between different wavelength are infinite in degree.

4. All instances in time are durations of time as the instance, at the microscopic scale, is another duration of time.

Again you seem to be stuck in some sort of atomistic assumption. There are no distinct divisions or units of time. THe units of time we use are wholly arbitrary, and time is also pure analogue infinitely divisible.

5. If the law of noncontradiction is false then P=-P thus no contradiction exists, P=-P is an absence of contradiction. If P=/=-P is true then P=-P is a contradiction.

This statement has no bearing on the foregoing statements.
You have not shown any contradiction. What you have shown is just a set of confused conceptions.
This is all that needs saying

However another possibility remains if P=-P is true then P=/=-P can also be true as (=)=(=/=), equality equals non-equality as P would stand in for "equality" and -P for "non-equality". This would be saying both P and -P are both equal and unequal; (P=-P)=(P=/=-P). An example of this would be a square peg and a square hole both being equal as both are squares, yet no two empirical squares are completely equal thus a simultaneous inequality remains. All objects are both equal and unequal. This dualism thus necessitates the law of non-contradiction as both false and true, as false and true contradiction both exists and does not exist; relatively speaking P=-P observes where the absence of contradiction occurs, this focus on the absence of contradiction is where the argument is directed.

6. Two lines as one line observes two lines as one line thus both two lines and one line occur simultaneously, an example of this would be a line with a 0d point in the center; two lines occur as one line, one line occurs as two lines, both 1 line and 2 lines equate under the context of line. Dually 2 lines repeated is 1 line manifested in multiple states, these multiple states are the same line thus one line occurs.

7. 1+1=2 refers to forms and all forms are empirical. Even a number line is an empirical form. An abstract thing is still a thing and as a thing exists empirically as a symbol. Abstractions do not escape from an empirical nature.

8. Two things occuring in the same duration is two things occuring in the same context of time; time is a context. It would be like me saying two things occur simultaneously. An example of this would be saying "Judas hanged at x time" and "Judas did not hang at x time"; if Judas was standing on a stool with his toes planted while a rope hung around his neck holding up most of his weight he both hanged and not-hanged.

Blah, blah, blah

1. False, all that exists before the senses is non-sensical. All things have there grounded in empirical reality. Give an example of a strictly "a priori" proposition.

word definitions. all numbers. mathematical relationships. conceptuals.
If you want to know philosophy it is useful to understand the differences between a priori and a posteriori

2. "Time is a duration thus along one duration" = "Time is a duration therefore x" with "Time is a duration" assuming implicitly " and y" as well. To say time is a duration is to say time is continuous as a duration is continuous. Any instance of time is a part of time itself thus subject to the nature of time. If time is a duration then any instance of time is a duration.

You are not even saying any thing here. This is arbitrarily tauological. It does not advance and argument. And is incidentally apriori

3. A color equates to a wavelength thus is objectively empirical and not subjective.

No a colour refers to a wavelength but different colours are subjective. But there is hope in this statement.

4. Time is not completely subjective as it is the relation of x and y within the context of z. Time is the relationship of particles moving within a larger particle; an example of this is the number of sand grains falling from a large sand pile; each grain of sand is a fraction of the pile. Time is the fractions of something proceeding from a larger whole; time is fractals.

Not relevant. TIme is analogue. Units and "grains" of time are part of your confusion.
Why have you dumped your confused statement about two colours existing and not existing?

5. Of course I did not show a contradiction if P=-P. You ignored the example of the square peg and the square hole.

More bolocks

6. Blah, Blah, blah is just an absence of a counterargument and where a counterargument does not occur then the argument stands.

You have not presented ANY argument.
We are still waiting.

[Eodnhoj7]

False.
Propositions can be purely a priori.

This is not coherent.

What do you think a colour is? There are no distinct colours as distinct from other colours. Colours are qualia, and are subjective representations of differences in the wavelengths of perceived light entering the eye. Spectrums are a brain state and not a true empirical representation.
Wvelengths are not atomistic or digital, wavelengths are analogue and the differences in tone between different wavelength are infinite in degree.

Again you seem to be stuck in some sort of atomistic assumption. There are no distinct divisions or units of time. THe units of time we use are wholly arbitrary, and time is also pure analogue infinitely divisible.

This statement has no bearing on the foregoing statements.
You have not shown any contradiction. What you have shown is just a set of confused conceptions.
This is all that needs saying

Blah, blah, blah

1. False, all that exists before the senses is non-sensical. All things have there grounded in empirical reality. Give an example of a strictly "a priori" proposition.

word definitions. all numbers. mathematical relationships. conceptuals.
If you want to know philosophy it is useful to understand the differences between a priori and a posteriori

2. "Time is a duration thus along one duration" = "Time is a duration therefore x" with "Time is a duration" assuming implicitly " and y" as well. To say time is a duration is to say time is continuous as a duration is continuous. Any instance of time is a part of time itself thus subject to the nature of time. If time is a duration then any instance of time is a duration.

You are not even saying any thing here. This is arbitrarily tauological. It does not advance and argument. And is incidentally apriori

3. A color equates to a wavelength thus is objectively empirical and not subjective.

No a colour refers to a wavelength but different colours are subjective. But there is hope in this statement.

4. Time is not completely subjective as it is the relation of x and y within the context of z. Time is the relationship of particles moving within a larger particle; an example of this is the number of sand grains falling from a large sand pile; each grain of sand is a fraction of the pile. Time is the fractions of something proceeding from a larger whole; time is fractals.

Not relevant. TIme is analogue. Units and "grains" of time are part of your confusion.
Why have you dumped your confused statement about two colours existing and not existing?

5. Of course I did not show a contradiction if P=-P. You ignored the example of the square peg and the square hole.

More bolocks

6. Blah, Blah, blah is just an absence of a counterargument and where a counterargument does not occur then the argument stands.

You have not presented ANY argument.
We are still waiting.

1. All quantifiers and variables exist because of sensory knowledge; their relationships exist as proven because of the senses. All a priori knowledge exists because of its groundings in the empirical. A number cannot exist without first quantifying something. A concept cannot occur without first pointing to a physical phenomenon. The concept of 1 equates to an infinite variety of physical phenomenon and cannot exist without it. All theoretical knowledge is grounded in and proven through the empirical...there is no strict a priori knowledge.

2. Time is the relationship of parts thus is empirical; it is change and change is empirical.
2a. "If time is a duration then any instance of time is a duration."= All instances are durations. Given all instances are durations multiple phenomenon can occur in one instance.

3. Different colors are different wavelengths and different wavelengths are objective.

4. Time is change; change is a relationship of parts. The change due to one grain of sand falling exists in relation to the larger pile. Change is fractals. Fractals are fractions (ex: one line being composed of multiple similar lines). Change is fractions and as fractions are the relationship of parts in comparison to a greater whole (ie falling sand grains as part of a sand pile or one second as a part of a minute). Time being measured as the falling of sand grains from a sand pile necessitates time as the relationship of a part relative to a larger whole. Because time is a relationship of parts is occurs in durations given change occurs over a duration. Two different, or rather opposing, phenomenon can coexist within one duration (me moving and stopping my hand within the duration of one grain of sand falling).

5. You ignored the example of the square peg and the square hole.

6. You ignored the example of the square peg and the square hole as well as the "hanging" Judas. Dually one road goes both ways.

[Sculptor]

1. False, all that exists before the senses is non-sensical. All things have there grounded in empirical reality. Give an example of a strictly "a priori" proposition.

word definitions. all numbers. mathematical relationships. conceptuals.
If you want to know philosophy it is useful to understand the differences between a priori and a posteriori

2. "Time is a duration thus along one duration" = "Time is a duration therefore x" with "Time is a duration" assuming implicitly " and y" as well. To say time is a duration is to say time is continuous as a duration is continuous. Any instance of time is a part of time itself thus subject to the nature of time. If time is a duration then any instance of time is a duration.

You are not even saying any thing here. This is arbitrarily tauological. It does not advance and argument. And is incidentally apriori

3. A color equates to a wavelength thus is objectively empirical and not subjective.

No a colour refers to a wavelength but different colours are subjective. But there is hope in this statement.

4. Time is not completely subjective as it is the relation of x and y within the context of z. Time is the relationship of particles moving within a larger particle; an example of this is the number of sand grains falling from a large sand pile; each grain of sand is a fraction of the pile. Time is the fractions of something proceeding from a larger whole; time is fractals.

Not relevant. TIme is analogue. Units and "grains" of time are part of your confusion.
Why have you dumped your confused statement about two colours existing and not existing?

5. Of course I did not show a contradiction if P=-P. You ignored the example of the square peg and the square hole.

More bolocks

6. Blah, Blah, blah is just an absence of a counterargument and where a counterargument does not occur then the argument stands.

You have not presented ANY argument.
We are still waiting.

1. All quantifiers and variables exist because of sensory knowledge; their relationships exist as proven because of the senses. All a priori knowledge exists because of its groundings in the empirical. A number cannot exist without first quantifying something. A concept cannot occur without first pointing to a physical phenomenon. The concept of 1 equates to an infinite variety of physical phenomenon and cannot exist without it. All theoretical knowledge is grounded in and proven through the empirical...there is no strict a priori knowledge.

2. Time is the relationship of parts thus is empirical; it is change and change is empirical.
2a. "If time is a duration then any instance of time is a duration."= All instances are durations. Given all instances are durations multiple phenomenon can occur in one instance.

3. Different colors are different wavelengths and different wavelengths are objective.

colours are subjective. wavelength are objective.
Colours are qualitatively different; wavelngth are quantitatively different.
I think this is what you do not understand.

4. Time is change; change is a relationship of parts. The change due to one grain of sand falling exists in relation to the larger pile. Change is fractals. Fractals are fractions (ex: one line being composed of multiple similar lines). Change is fractions and as fractions are the relationship of parts in comparison to a greater whole (ie falling sand grains as part of a sand pile or one second as a part of a minute). Time being measured as the falling of sand grains from a sand pile necessitates time as the relationship of a part relative to a larger whole. Because time is a relationship of parts is occurs in durations given change occurs over a duration. Two different, or rather opposing, phenomenon can coexist within one duration (me moving and stopping my hand within the duration of one grain of sand falling).

5. You ignored the example of the square peg and the square hole.

6. You ignored the example of the square peg and the square hole as well as the "hanging" Judas. Dually one road goes both ways.

I do not care what shape you hole is; one bad analogy is not better than any other.

[Skepdick]

If P==P is false then P==-P can be observed as true as it necessitates total equality as bunk.

Yeah? No!

identity-what.png (37.26 KiB) Viewed 1868 times

[Skepdick]

THe following spectrum wheel is based on a typical hexdecimal notation for all knowable colours from #255 - #000.
Any given source of light will have a point value at some distinct point on this wheel.

That's not true.

Clolors are continuous - the RGB model is discrete. In principle there are as many colors as there are wavelength frequencies, while the RGB model can only account for 16581375 (255^3) distinct colors.

[Scott Mayers]

in our worlds, we DEFINE 'logic' to refer to the consistent systems.

That is factually bullshit.

Linear logic is paraconsistent.

http://nlab-pages.s3.us-east-2.amazonaw ... near_logic

If you can't be respectful of the subject matter's sincere issues , don't bother trying. Shouldn't you be with the rally againt vaccines and wearing masks?

[Skepdick]

If you can't be respectful of the subject matter's sincere issues , don't bother trying. Shouldn't you be with the rally againt vaccines and wearing masks?

From where I am looking you are the person missing at that rally?

I am the person who understands why para-consistent logic is better than classical logic for safety engineering.

It doesn't explode when (not if) humans make mistakes.

[Sculptor]

THe following spectrum wheel is based on a typical hexdecimal notation for all knowable colours from #255 - #000.
Any given source of light will have a point value at some distinct point on this wheel.

That's not true.

Clolors are continuous - the RGB model is discrete. In principle there are as many colors as there are wavelength frequencies, while the RGB model can only account for 16581375 (255^3) distinct colors.

You are really not paying attention.
Take up your objection with the other guy.

[Scott Mayers]

If you can't be respectful of the subject matter's sincere issues , don't bother trying. Shouldn't you be with the rally againt vaccines and wearing masks?

From where I am looking you are the person missing at that rally?

I am the person who understands why para-consistent logic is better than classical logic for safety engineering.

It doesn't explode when (not if) humans make mistakes.

You have no proof of your credibility other than what you can present. I interpret those who rely on insulting more often than not as representing an insecurity of some sort. The 'blah, blah, blah,' for instance demonstrates your 'skill' at reasoning when you cannot find an appropriate response. If you think your 'evidence' of a program somehow proves you correct, and given you think you are the wiser, then explain STEP BY STEP what your image means. [I haven't used nor needed Prolog (yet) but it appears you are using that or some other similar program in your example images. I practice designing different systems all the time (and in particular am interested in HOW various systems operate ground up.)]

My guess (before I get to such a future investment in logic-verifying systems like Prolog) is that your examples (or ones you are using) are ASSIGNING meaning. The 'assignment' is itself NOT able to exist if the assignment remains perpetually variable. That is, the act of assignment IS using the Law of Identity because it is DEFINING of the symbols. The meaning of those first general logic laws are only flexible on whether one accepts a function for the contradiction. This is AUTOMATICALLY adjusted for in multivariable systems. Paraconsistency is about recognizing that Totality is 'consistent' for BEING inconsistent. Where a contradiction is relatively inconsistent in some particular Universe, it would be consistent in a parallel way ELSEWHERE (a different perspective.

So I favor at least paraconsistency with respect to Totality.

[Skepdick]

You have no proof of your credibility other than what you can present.

Why does my credibility matter if what I demonstrate is true?

I interpret those who rely on insulting more often than not as representing an insecurity of some sort.

Oh yeah? Is that how I am supposed to interpret your anti-vaxx/anti-mask rally comment?

The 'blah, blah, blah,' for instance demonstrates your 'skill' at reasoning when you cannot find an appropriate response.

What the "'blah, blah, blah" demonstrates is that you talk a lot, but say very little. Actions speak louder than words.

My response was demonstrative/empirical not verbal.

If you think your 'evidence' of a program somehow proves you correct, and given you think you are the wiser, then explain STEP BY STEP what your image means.

What is it that you didn't understand? I have given you a formal system in which the formal expression "P == P" evaluates to False. It exists. Objectively.

The implication of this fact is that the assignment of "P == P" as being True (when it could just as well be false) is subject to arbitrary choice.

This should not be controversial. Identity is just an axiom. You can choose to reject it.

My guess (before I get to such a future investment in logic-verifying systems like Prolog) is that your examples (or ones you are using) are ASSIGNING meaning.

You got that exactly backwards. The system doesn't assign meaning. it evaluates meaning. In particular it evaluates the meaning of the expression "P == P" - it means False.

The 'assignment' is itself NOT able to exist if the assignment remains perpetually variable.
That is, the act of assignment IS using the Law of Identity because it is DEFINING of the symbols.

The law of identity states that for all x: x == x. But so what? It's just an axiom.

I can trivially extend the system by adding another axiom: for all y: y != y

whaaa.png (35.9 KiB) Viewed 1830 times

Normally, this is where sophists begin to object that the "x" in "for all x: x == x" is meant to be treated as an unbound variable.

Really? So can I also treat the "for all" and "==" operators as unbound also, or is that not allowed?

The meaning of those first general logic laws are only flexible on whether one accepts a function for the contradiction. This is AUTOMATICALLY adjusted for in multivariable systems. Paraconsistency is about recognizing that Totality is 'consistent' for BEING inconsistent.

Where a contradiction is relatively inconsistent in some particular Universe, it would be consistent in a parallel way ELSEWHERE (a different perspective.

So I favor at least paraconsistency with respect to Totality.

Well duh! That's a direct implication of Godel's work. A formal system can have the semantic property of consistency OR completeness but not both. Choose one.

I've chosen to give up consistency in exchange for greater expressive power. It's called a trade-off.

[Scott Mayers]

You have no proof of your credibility other than what you can present.

Why does my credibility matter if what I demonstrate is true?

It matters that you PROVE that you understand it yourself by EXPANDING upon it to explain to the audience what your 'proof' means. Otherwise it is no different than asserting,

Proof that I am correct!!.jpg (43.87 KiB) Viewed 1818 times

I interpret those who rely on insulting more often than not as representing an insecurity of some sort.

Oh yeah? Is that how I am supposed to interpret your anti-vaxx/anti-mask rally comment?

That was the POINT of the insult! If you don't want it, don't dish it.

The 'blah, blah, blah,' for instance demonstrates your 'skill' at reasoning when you cannot find an appropriate response.

What the "'blah, blah, blah" demonstrates is that you talk a lot, but say very little. Actions speak louder than words.

My response was demonstrative/empirical not verbal.

Your 'response' is not meaningful. Either explain what you think it means or admit that you don't know. I already told you that that was a symbolic definition, not a 'proof' that you can make an anti-logical logic.

If you think your 'evidence' of a program somehow proves you correct, and given you think you are the wiser, then explain STEP BY STEP what your image means.

What is it that you didn't understand? I have given you a formal system in which the formal expression "P == P" evaluates to False. It exists. Objectively.

The implication of this fact is that the assignment of "P == P" as being True (when it could just as well be false) is subject to arbitrary choice.

This should not be controversial. Identity is just an axiom. You can choose to reject it.

Your reasoning is mistaken. If it DEFINES anything, it is ASSIGNING a value, which is itself is just another symbol when begging you use a symbol that MEANS the opposite. So I can call myself, "Nobody". If that was my name and I insisted that I did not exist, this would confuse the meaning of 'nobody' as we use it versus the symbolic term we assign to it. If the Identity law was untrue, you can't even ASSIGN anything.

To prove your counterposition would require proving that WHEN you assign something there, it never stays assigned such that when you call up the variable, it would randomly pick between given optional values. That is, if assuming K = {0,1} as options for value assignments and I assigned memory-X = 1, then if I called up "memory-X" it MIGHT be '1' or '0' without PREDICTABILITY. It would be completely useless except if it was used as some random-number generator. And even random generation in computing is artificially predictable and so relatively deterministic.

The Law of Identity is a rule ABOUT ALL 'logics'. You require something to define fixed. The concepts of 'true' nor 'false' can be assigned any arbitrary symbol. You can assign it 'false', for instance. But if this term is used, like in most high-order languages, this is actually represented in the computer as a '0'. You can assign it 'true' and the computer would assign it '1' (by most languages). But these are only SYMBOLIC representations, not something 'proving' that what is true is false in our human language.

My guess (before I get to such a future investment in logic-verifying systems like Prolog) is that your examples (or ones you are using) are ASSIGNING meaning.

You got that exactly backwards. The system doesn't assign meaning. it evaluates meaning. In particular it evaluates the meaning of the expression "P == P" - it means False.

Trust me on this....that is assigning the "==", not the 'P'. 'P' can be false and this statement would be 'true' if "==" was defined to MEAN 'logical equivalence.'

I am well versed in the engineering of the computer electronics, any machine language associated with it and HOW you can assign meaning to ANY symbol even contrary to its normal use. The logic still remains the same. Paraconsistency is NOT something about the physical laws of our consistent universe.

The 'assignment' is itself NOT able to exist if the assignment remains perpetually variable.
That is, the act of assignment IS using the Law of Identity because it is DEFINING of the symbols.

The law of identity states that for all x: x == x. But so what? It's just an axiom.

They used the word, "law" to intentionally point out that this 'axiom' is absolutely necessary (IN MEANING) to the concept of any logic system. It DEFINES what "logic" means AT THE LEAST. If it is not true (meaning), then it is NOT a 'logic' but a random unpredictable and a useless tool.

Normally, this is where sophists begin to object that the "x" in "for all x: x == x" is meant to be treated as an unbound variable.

Really? So can I also treat the "for all" and "==" operators as unbound also, or is that not allowed?

As I just mentioned above, "==" is defined, not the 'P'. I can MAKE any higher order language using opposite terms to the normal meanings. I can assign "==" to MEAN not equals. I believe you are literally making the error that you think others are making: mixing up the assignment of arbtrary symbols to the MEANINGS.

The meaning of those first general logic laws are only flexible on whether one accepts a function for the contradiction. This is AUTOMATICALLY adjusted for in multivariable systems. Paraconsistency is about recognizing that Totality is 'consistent' for BEING inconsistent.

Where a contradiction is relatively inconsistent in some particular Universe, it would be consistent in a parallel way ELSEWHERE (a different perspective.

So I favor at least paraconsistency with respect to Totality.

Well duh! That's a direct implication of Godel's work. A formal system can have the semantic property of consistency OR completeness but not both. Choose one.

I've chosen to give up consistency in exchange for greater expressive power. It's called a trade-off.

Another mistaken interpretation. Completeness of a system is one that IS both consistent for all its operations AND COVERS all possible members of its domain with that consistency. "Consistency" is defined as either "contingent" or "tautologous" in the metalogic proofs of those systems, ....like what Godel used.

[Skepdick]

It matters that you PROVE that you understand it yourself by EXPANDING upon it to explain to the audience what your 'proof' means. Otherwise it is no different than asserting,
Proof that I am correct!!.jpg

Way to demonstrate you don't understand what's going on here.

I am showing you evidence. Objective. Observable. Empirical evidence. Counter-examples to your "TOTAL" claims! Falsification.

Asserting that my evidence is "correct" or "incorrect" is.... meaningless. That's just some arbitrary value judgment you are projecting.

That was the POINT of the insult! If you don't want it, don't dish it.

I don't know why you felt insulted by me pointing out that what you are saying is bullshit.

It was bullshit. That's not an attack on you - it was an attack on your idea. But if you've strongly coupled your ideas to your identity I can understand why you might take that as an insult.

Your 'response' is not meaningful.

Empirical counter-examples to your "incontrovertible laws" is not meaningful to you? Falsification is not meaningful to you? Then I guess you are not a scientist...

Either explain what you think it means or admit that you don't know.

Why? You understand very well what "P == P is True" means. Why don't you understand what "P == P is False" means?

I already told you that that was a symbolic definition, not a 'proof' that you can make an anti-logical logic.

Well what do you mean by "proof"? In the paradigm I exist in proofs are programs.

Your reasoning is mistaken.

Huh? Mistaken? What does it mean to "be mistaken"? The system which performs the evaluation is right before your eyes.

What does it mean for objective evidence to "be mistaken" ?!?!

If it DEFINES anything, it is ASSIGNING a value, which is itself is just another symbol when begging you use a symbol that MEANS the opposite.

Yes Scott, that is PRECISELY what you have done also. In DEFINING the "law" of identity you have DEFINED "P == P" to be true.

And I have defined "NOT (P == P)" to be true.

This is how negation works in practice. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

So I can call myself, "Nobody". If that was my name and I insisted that I did not exist, this would confuse the meaning of 'nobody' as we use it versus the symbolic term we assign to it. If the Identity law was untrue, you can't even ASSIGN anything.

What are you on about?

What is the meaning of the symbolic term "meaning" ?

To prove your counterposition would require proving that WHEN you assign something there, it never stays assigned such that when you call up the variable, it would randomly pick between given optional values. That is, if assuming K = {0,1} as options for value assignments and I assigned memory-X = 1, then if I called up "memory-X" it MIGHT be '1' or '0' without PREDICTABILITY. It would be completely useless except if it was used as some random-number generator. And even random generation in computing is artificially predictable and so relatively deterministic.

Yes. I can "prove" that also!

random-identity.png (31.13 KiB) Viewed 1816 times

The Law of Identity is a rule ABOUT ALL 'logics'.

I don't know what language you need me to use to explain this to you....

The "law" is not a real law if I can choose to disobey. it. As I am demonstrating.

The concepts of 'true' nor 'false' can be assigned any arbitrary symbol. You can assign it 'false', for instance. But if this term is used, like in most high-order languages, this is actually represented in the computer as a '0'. You can assign it 'true' and the computer would assign it '1' (by most languages). But these are only SYMBOLIC representations, not something 'proving' that what is true is false in our human language.

Yes. I know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... ty_theorem

So what do you mean by "true" and "false" in our human language?

Trust me on this....that is assigning the "==", not the P! P can be false and this statement would be 'true' if "==" was defined to MEAN 'logical equivalence.'

I don't trust you on this. What does "==" mean ? What does equivalence mean? What does any logical or mathematical operator mean?

You are probably going to tell me something like "It means what it is defined to mean" and I'll re-state the fact that I am intentionally defining it to mean whatever I want it to mean.

You don't get to prescribe definitions to me.

I am well versed in the engineering of the computer electronics, any machine language associated with it and HOW you can assign meaning to ANY symbol even contrary to its normal use. The logic still remains the same. Paraconsistency is NOT something about the physical laws of our consistent universe.

What do you mean by "normal" use. Are you saying my use is not normal? Justify your claim.

They used the word, "law" to intentionally point out that this 'axiom' is absolutely necessary (IN MEANING) to the concept of any logic system. It DEFINES what "logic" means AT THE LEAST. If it is not true (meaning), then it is NOT a 'logic' but a random unpredictable and a useless tool.

So I am not allowed to USE a different definition? Says who?

As I just mentioned above, "==" is defined, not the 'P'. I can MAKE any higher order language using opposite terms to the normal meanings. I can assign "==" to MEAN not equals. I believe you are literally making the error that you think others are making: mixing up the assignment of arbtrary symbols to the MEANINGS.

Wha do you mean by "error"? Why is it an "error" to assign whatever meaning I want to anything I want?

Another mistaken interpretation.

What do you mean by "mistaken". It is an interpretation. It's different to your interpretation.

What makes my interpretation "mistaken" and your interpretation "not mistaken" ?

Completeness of a system is one that IS both consistent for all its operations AND COVERS all possible members of its domain with that consistency. "Consistency" is defined as either "contingent" or "tautologous" in the metalogic proofs of those systems, ....like what Godel used.

Whatever metalogic you are refering to it's contingent upon the assumptions in your meta-metalogic. And your meta-meta-logic. And your meta-meta-meta-metalogic.

Or what Mathematicians call "Universese". There are infinitely many of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_(mathematics)

[Scott Mayers]

It matters that you PROVE that you understand it yourself by EXPANDING upon it to explain to the audience what your 'proof' means. Otherwise it is no different than asserting,
Proof that I am correct!!.jpg

Way to demonstrate you don't understand what's going on here.

I am showing you evidence. Objective. Observable. Empirical evidence. Counter-examples to your "TOTAL" claims! Falsification.

Asserting that my evidence is "correct" or "incorrect" is.... meaningless. That's just some arbitrary value judgment you are projecting.

????? Your 'evidence' is only evidence that you can post an image of some computer program that any idiot could learn but lacks meaning without knowing the rules of THAT system's logic! You have some functional definition with parameters that appear to have PROPRIETARY instruction code that requires the manual to determine how it operates. IT TOO is a 'logic' that cannot function without consistency in ANY computer. As such, you cannot prove that something about logic is 'inconsistent' in general by using a specific INSTANCE using a program that REQUIRES those minimal laws in order to WORK!

That was the POINT of the insult! If you don't want it, don't dish it.

I don't know why you felt insulted by me pointing out that what you are saying is bullshit.

It was bullshit. That's not an attack on you - it was an attack on your idea. But if you've strongly coupled your ideas to your identity I can understand why you might take that as an insult.

If it was, you didn't show me anything that proves it. I told you that I am sufficiently qualified to know by my own PRACTICE! If you think you are more the clever, then you should have no problem demonstrating what that program does when it is compiled!

If you accepted Godel, you'd know that the second part of his theorem is that no system can PROVE itself. Well, given that this PARTICULAR logic is itself a subset of logic IN GENERAL, AND you insist that it 'disproves' the Law of Identity, you are imposing a 'proof' about its non-existence. Godel did not prove that logic was useless; he was proving that you cannot find a particular universal mechanism (a logic system) that can solve all its problems within its domain (first part) and that you cannot use the same system to prove its own system is sound.

You also cannot use a program that proves it is NOT a program, as you seem to expect. The computer that runs that programs' logic IS defined by the Laws of Logic necessarily. You are arguing in the same way that you have a proof that no proof exists! Thus, I can safely ignore you if you continue with this, which I anticipate.

Your 'response' is not meaningful.

Empirical counter-examples to your "incontrovertible laws" is not meaningful to you? Falsification is not meaningful to you? Then I guess you are not a scientist...

Here's falsification for you: Is there evidence that I could propose that would alter your opinion otherwise? Popper's falsification was about the fact that empirical science uses INDUCTION that cannot determine absolute truth and so he proposed that science's best aptitude is its ability to falsify particular facts. Those laws of logic laws were accepted by Popper.

Either explain what you think it means or admit that you don't know.

Why? You understand very well what "P == P is True" means. Why don't you understand what "P == P is False" means?

List each coded line and tell me what that fucking program is supposed to do? Or just accept my own "Proof that I am correct" in the same way you expect me to trust your nonsense.

I already told you that that was a symbolic definition, not a 'proof' that you can make an anti-logical logic.

Well what do you mean by "proof"? In the paradigm I exist in proofs are programs.

What does that incomplete sentence mean? I cannot even interpret it charitably. Can you rephrase?

Your reasoning is mistaken.

Huh? Mistaken? What does it mean to "be mistaken"? The system which performs the evaluation is right before your eyes.

What does it mean for objective evidence to "be mistaken" ?!?!

You are calling it 'objective' without qualification. I trust that the program is ASSIGNING meaning using a VERIFICATION PROGRAM, like Prolog (?) [Is this the program language? If not, tell me what it is so that I may at least have some means to look it up.]

If it DEFINES anything, it is ASSIGNING a value, which is itself is just another symbol when begging you use a symbol that MEANS the opposite.

Yes Scott, that is PRECISELY what you have done also. In DEFINING the "law" of identity you have DEFINED "P == P" to be true.

And I have DEFINED the "law" of identity to be the opposite.

You accept the "law" as true.
I accept the "law" as false.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

You are not recognizing that those intial 'Laws of Logic' are the DEFINITION of "logic" as a formal system! It also defines what it is NOT: a random nonsensical inconsistent formula for reasoning. You are missing that it DEFINES "LOGIC". All logical systems need some consistent set of rules: the axioms of any system. The Law of Identity means that you must have SOME means of FIXING MEANING to some symbols. So if you want to define 'right' to mean 'wrong' in your system, you CAN. But the mechanism has to be such that IF you determine something within the system, the rules of that system must STAY THE SAME throughout.

Ironically, to prove something correct about logic's supposed lack of consistency would require showing that you are INCONSISTENTLY consistent AND inconsistent simultaneously which makes your form of reasoning itself not 'reasonable'. I'd just have to stop arguing with you for proving your preference of non-rational rationality.

So I can call myself, "Nobody". If that was my name and I insisted that I did not exist, this would confuse the meaning of 'nobody' as we use it versus the symbolic term we assign to it. If the Identity law was untrue, you can't even ASSIGN anything.

What are you on about?

What is the meaning of the symbolic term "meaning" ?

If you don't change your mind after this post, I'll just have to quit trying with you. I am well aware of the paradoxical factors of language and given I have never changed a mind online (or have not been 'proven' able to with any certainty), I will not waste my time further on this.

Is there anything you agree with that I say?

To prove your counterposition would require proving that WHEN you assign something there, it never stays assigned such that when you call up the variable, it would randomly pick between given optional values. That is, if assuming K = {0,1} as options for value assignments and I assigned memory-X = 1, then if I called up "memory-X" it MIGHT be '1' or '0' without PREDICTABILITY. It would be completely useless except if it was used as some random-number generator. And even random generation in computing is artificially predictable and so relatively deterministic.

Yes. I can "prove" that also!

random-identity.png

I anticipated this if you were to be consistent to being the 'dick' in skepdick. Try again.

If you know what you wrote, tell me line by line what this supposed program does. Anyone can make up a list of apparent 'code' that doesn't mean anything.

Code: Select all

IN [1] X = true
IN [2] y = "more flavor"

IN [3] X 
OUT [4] false

See, I can make up nonsense too. When y = "more flavor", X is false. Is this presentation "objective"? Does it MEAN anything to you?

I don't even KNOW that your images are a program let alone what its language and syntax rules are. Prove to me that you didn't just use an editor with a black background and red and green letters.

The Law of Identity is a rule ABOUT ALL 'logics'.

I don't know what language you need me to use to explain this to you....

The "law" is not a real law if I can choose to disobey. it. As I am demonstrating.

I argue that Totality can have this 'capacity' given it initiates from absolutely nothing. But we are bound to rules given physics is rule-bound. So your 'disobediance' is not about logic but an insistence in not using logic. Logic is not different to a game that has rules. The players do not HAVE to follow the rules. But if you are supposedly playing such a game with others, either you agree to abide by them equally among everyone or you are just indicating that you don't want to play.

The concepts of 'true' nor 'false' can be assigned any arbitrary symbol. You can assign it 'false', for instance. But if this term is used, like in most high-order languages, this is actually represented in the computer as a '0'. You can assign it 'true' and the computer would assign it '1' (by most languages). But these are only SYMBOLIC representations, not something 'proving' that what is true is false in our human language.

Yes. I know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... ty_theorem

So what do you mean by "true" and "false" in our human language?

Truth values are indicators of 'fitness' to some comparable universal class. That is, what one defines is presumed 'in' some universal class (at the instance of discourse), it is defined 'true'; otherwise, it is 'false'.

Trust me on this....that is assigning the "==", not the P! P can be false and this statement would be 'true' if "==" was defined to MEAN 'logical equivalence.'

I don't trust you on this. What does "==" mean ? What does equivalence mean? What does any logical or mathematical operator mean?

Are you not acting 'political' here? You are proving not interested in logic per se but in doing whatever it takes to make any form of reasoning irrational. I'm not buying in.

I read the rest but have no more to say. If you don't approve of anything I said above, you are NOT going to ever agree to anything I say, ...likely with intention to disagree regardless of any sincere 'truth' here.

[Skepdick]

????? Your 'evidence' is only evidence that you can post an image of some computer program that any idiot could learn but lacks meaning without knowing the rules of THAT system's logic!

Au contraire! It's precisely because I know the rules is why I know how to break them.

I am in the business of inventing rules - you are in the business of obeying rules.

You have some functional definition with parameters that appear to have PROPRIETARY instruction code that requires the manual to determine how it operates. IT TOO is a 'logic' that cannot function without consistency in ANY computer. As such, you cannot prove that something about logic is 'inconsistent' in general by using a specific INSTANCE using a program that REQUIRES those minimal laws in order to WORK!

Way to demonstrate you don't understand linear logic.

What do you mean by "consistency" in the time-domain?

Is a system that is consistently inconsistent... consistent...or inconsistent?

If it was, you didn't show me anything that proves it. I told you that I am sufficiently qualified to know by my own PRACTICE! If you think you are more the clever, then you should have no problem demonstrating what that program does when it is compiled!

I know exactly what it does because I made it do it.

The system takes the formal expression "P == P" and it evaluates it.

In fact I have shown you three different systems.

A system which evaluates the expression to Tue; a system which evaluates the expression to False and a system which randomly evaluates it to True or False.

If you accepted Godel, you'd know that the second part of his theorem is that no system can PROVE itself.

Bullshit. You don't understand the implications of Godel. It only says that any system which can prove its own consistency is necessarily inconsistent.

My system IS inconsistent. I know that! It's by design.

Here's falsification for you: Is there evidence that I could propose that would alter your opinion otherwise?

I haven't expressed any opinions or judgments to be falsified. I am only negating all of yours with counter-examples.

Popper's falsification was about the fact that empirical science uses INDUCTION that cannot determine absolute truth and so he proposed that science's best aptitude is its ability to falsify particular facts. Those laws of logic laws were accepted by Popper.

Yes... Induction. Sequent calculus. Linear logic. Same thing.

What is true in Universe N is falsified (negated)[ in Universe N+1.

What is true in Universe N+1 is falsified (negated) in Universe N+1+1.

List each coded line and tell me what that fucking program is supposed to do? Or just accept my own "Proof that I am correct" in the same way you expect me to trust your nonsense.

The fuck? I told you what the system (as a whole) is supposed to do.

It takes the formal expression "P == P" as input.
It evaluates it and returns its truth-value as output e.g True, or False.

I am not expecting you to do anything with this fact.

Accepting or rejecting it is on you.

What does that incomplete sentence mean? I cannot even interpret it charitably. Can you rephrase?

What is there to rephrase? Proofs ARE programs. They are the exact same entities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

And so you have before you a program which evaluates "P == P" as being False.
You can write a similar program to evaluate it as True.

Both systems (of logic) are possible.

Logics which accept the identity axiom.
Logics which reject the identity axiom.

"Laws" assign meaning.

Why is this so hard to understand?

You are calling it 'objective' without qualification. I trust that the program is ASSIGNING meaning using a VERIFICATION PROGRAM, like Prolog (?) [Is this the program language? If not, tell me what it is so that I may at least have some means to look it up.]

Yes the program assigns meaning in the very first stanza. But so what?

You are also ASSIGNING meaning to 'P == P". You are ASSIGNING it to mean true!
I am ASSIGNING it to mean false!

You are not recognizing that those intial 'Laws of Logic' are the DEFINITION of "logic" as a formal system!

Yes, I am recognizing that exact thing. The initial "laws" of logic are ONE possible definition of logic. ONE of many.

There are OTHER DEFINITIONS possible!

I am demonstrating one such alternative definition!

It also defines what it is NOT: a random nonsensical inconsistent formula for reasoning. You are missing that it DEFINES "LOGIC".

You are missing that you don't understand HOW the ACT of definition works.

I can define logic however the fuck I want to define it. Who's to deny me my freedom to define?

All logical systems need some consistent set of rules: the axioms of any system.

No, they don't! I have explicitly told you that I have foregone consistency in favour of para-consistency.

Why is this confusing you?

Explicitly in Reverse Mathematics one starts with the theorems first, not the axioms. So I am perfectly happy to take any logical expression/rule whatsoever. Even something that is proven to be true in some other system and negate it thus forming the foundation of a new system.

2+2=5 is false in your system? Fuck it! It's true in my system.

The Law of Identity means that you must have SOME means of FIXING MEANING to some symbols.

And the "law" of ad-hoc polymorphism says that the same symbol can have multiple different meanings - depending on context.

So if you want to define 'right' to mean 'wrong' in your system, you CAN. But the mechanism has to be such that IF you determine something within the system, the rules of that system must STAY THE SAME throughout.

Says who?

I showed you a system in which P == P randomly evaluates to True, or False.

Ironically, to prove something correct about logic's supposed lack of consistency would require showing that you are INCONSISTENTLY consistent AND inconsistent simultaneously which makes your form of reasoning itself not 'reasonable'. I'd just have to stop arguing with you for proving your preference of non-rational rationality.

Ironically. The only thing I need to do in order to prove that my system is inconsistent ... is to prove that it's consistent.

If you don't change your mind after this post, I'll just have to quit trying with you.

Spare me your efforts then. I am not here to change my mind - I am here to tell you that I am going to think however I choose to think.

I am well aware of the paradoxical factors of language and given I have never changed a mind online (or have not been 'proven' able to with any certainty), I will not waste my time further on this.

Is there anything you agree with that I say?

I agree with everything you say, but I don't accept it.

Because I choose not to. Your way of thinking doesn't work for me.

If you know what you wrote, tell me line by line what this supposed program does. Anyone can make up a list of apparent 'code' that doesn't mean anything.

Why?!?!

I want you tell me, line by line what your supposed brain does when it asserts that P == P is true.

See, I can make up nonsense too. When y = "more flavor", X is false. Is this presentation "objective"? Does it MEAN anything to you?

It depends on what you mean by meaning.

It's not meaningful to me, but it may be meaningful to you - I don't know.

I don't even KNOW that your images are a program let alone what its language and syntax rules are. Prove to me that you didn't just use an editor with a black background and red and green letters.

Well what syntax/language did you use in asserting that P == P is True?

I argue that Totality can have this 'capacity' given it initiates from absolutely nothing.

OK. Then? Your axioms too initiate from absolutely nothing.

Assuming your axioms true is arbitrary. You can just as well negate them.

But we are bound to rules given physics is rule-bound.

You don't even understand what rules are! Most of all you don't even understand compression; or the linear speed-up theorem!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_speedup_theorem

So your 'disobediance' is not about logic but an insistence in not using logic.

My insistence is in not using YOUR logic and YOUR rules.

Logic is not different to a game that has rules. The players do not HAVE to follow the rules.

No wonder we disagree. The players are the ones who INVENT the rules.

You are in the game of following the rules. I am in the game of inventing the rules.

But if you are supposedly playing such a game with others, either you agree to abide by them equally among everyone or you are just indicating that you don't want to play.

Bullshit. I just don't want to play by YOUR RULES.

Truth values are indicators of 'fitness' to some comparable universal class. That is, what one defines is presumed 'in' some universal class (at the instance of discourse), it is defined 'true'; otherwise, it is 'false'.

I don't understand this notion of "universal"....

Are you not acting 'political' here? You are proving not interested in logic per se but in doing whatever it takes to make any form of reasoning irrational. I'm not buying in.

OK then don't buy it - I am not asking you to.

But why are you trying to make me buy YOUR logic?

I read the rest but have no more to say. If you don't approve of anything I said above, you are NOT going to ever agree to anything I say, ...likely with intention to disagree regardless of any sincere 'truth' here.

Your definition of "truth" differs significantly from mine - how do you ever expect us to agree to anything?