Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:48 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:46 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:42 pm
None are so blind as those who refuse to understand.

There is an A such that A is the same as itself.
There is a B such that B is not the same as itself.

e.g there are systems of logic in which the "law" of identity is not universal.

Code: Select all

IPython 8.13.2 -- An enhanced Interactive Python. Type '?' for help.
In [1]: class Classical(): pass
In [2]: class NonClassical():
   ...:     def __eq__(self, other): return False
   ...:
In [3]: A = Classical()
In [4]: B = NonClassical()

In [5]: A == A
Out[5]: True

In [6]: B == B
Out[6]: False
And where do you stand on the argument I provided?
Nowhere.

Boolean logic with excluded middle amounts to choice.

Sometimes a thing is identical to itself
Sometimes it's not.

Code: Select all

In [1]: from random import choice

In [2]: class Random():
   ...:     def __eq__(self, other): return choice([True, False])
   ...:

In [3]: C = Random()

In [4]: C == C
Out[4]: True

In [5]: C == C
Out[5]: False
More accurately, can excluded middle can be applied to identity and non-contradiction?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:50 pm More accurately, can excluded middle can be applied to identity and non-contradiction?
Of course. It can be applied to any proposition P.

let P := ¬(a ∧ ¬a)

Either P is true; or not-P is true.

Either non-contradiction is true; or the negation of non-contradiction is true.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:53 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:50 pm More accurately, can excluded middle can be applied to identity and non-contradiction?
Of course. It can be applied to any proposition P.

let P := ¬(a ∧ ¬a)

Either P is true; or not-P is true.

Either non-contradiction is true; or the negation of non-contradiction is true.
But I am saying either equality (identity) is true or its negation (non-equality (non-contradiction)) is true.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:50 pm More accurately, can excluded middle can be applied to identity and non-contradiction?
For identity I've already demonstrated.

let P := (A=A)

Either P is true; or not-P is true.

e.g either A=A is true; or not(A=A) is true.

Which one? Whichever one you choose axiomatically

Code: Select all

In [1]: class NonClassical():
   ...:     def __eq__(self, other): return False
   ...:

In [2]: A = NonClassical()

In [3]: not(A == A)
Out[3]: True

In [4]: A == A
Out[4]: False
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:56 pm But I am saying either equality (identity) is true or its negation (non-equality (non-contradiction)) is true.
The negation of identity doesn't violate non-contradiction.

You get a contradiction only if identity is true AND false.

There is no contradiction if identity is either true OR false - that's consistent with LEM.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:53 pm

let P := ¬(a ∧ ¬a)
Well I won't stand in its way, but I can't guarantee that no one else will. :|
Leontiskos
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by Leontiskos »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:45 pm
Leontiskos wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:30 pmBuilding on what I said in my last post, the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction both apply to Aristotelian substances and accidents, but they simply are not mutually exclusive in the way you suppose. It can be true that something is identical with itself while at the same time it is not identical with another thing. For example, I am me (law of identity) and I am not you (law of non-contradiction). They are both true at the same time. Naturally, they refer to different objects, but that is much the point.

As I said in my first post, I don't perceive any clear argument that you have given to the contrary. We can't just stipulate termina for the LEM.
The contradiction depends on where you place the core truth value of the laws discussed, this value can be expressed as: Equality vs. Inequality. This dichotomy results in opposites and yet these opposites depend on each other, remove one and the other one goes. However from another angle each of these laws, identity and non-contradiction, are mutually exclusive just as 'truth' and 'falsity' are mutually exclusive as one is the negation of the other.
This would only be true if your relations (equality and inequality) were being applied to the same set of objects. As noted, they are not, and therefore the argument fails. To predicate 'equal' and 'unequal' of the same pair or set would be contradictory, but to predicate them of different sets is not necessarily contradictory. The latter is the case with the LOI & LNC. The set of things which is identical to an object is distinct from the set of things that is 'contradictory' to an object.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:45 pmAnother way of looking at this:

"Me" and "You" share the relative truth values of "Existence of Me" and "Non-Existence of Me (You)".

Because the laws of identity and law of non-contradiction are opposites in values, equality vs. absence of equality, one is the absence of the other thus it is the same as saying "A" and "-A" when saying "Law of Identity and Law of Non-Contradiction".
Let's take your example:
  • ExistenceOfEodnhoj(x)
  • ExistenceOfEodnhoj(@Eodnhoj7) = true
    • " Eodnhoj exists in 'Eodnhoj7' "
  • ExistenceOfEodnhoj(@Leontiskos) = false
    • " Eodnhoj does not exist in 'Leontiskos' "
The reason no contradiction occurs here is because the predication is made of two different objects. The same thing is true with the relation of LOI & LNC.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:03 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:53 pm

let P := ¬(a ∧ ¬a)
Well I won't stand in its way, but I can't guarantee that no one else will. :|
Hey, Hairball !

Did you figure out where you live so I can have your milk and a sliced loaf delivered?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by Skepdick »

Leontiskos wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:12 pm Let's take your example:
  • ExistenceOfEodnhoj(x)
  • ExistenceOfEodnhoj(@Eodnhoj7) = true
    • " Eodnhoj exists in 'Eodnhoj7' "
  • ExistenceOfEodnhoj(@Leontiskos) = false
    • " Eodnhoj does not exist in 'Leontiskos' "
The reason no contradiction occurs here is because the predication is made of two different objects. The same thing is true with the relation of LOI & LNC.
Identical(A, A) = true or false?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:12 pm
Harbal wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:03 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:53 pm

let P := ¬(a ∧ ¬a)
Well I won't stand in its way, but I can't guarantee that no one else will. :|
Hey, Hairball !

Did you figure out where you live so I can have your milk and a sliced loaf delivered?
Cancel my order.
Leontiskos
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by Leontiskos »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:56 pmBut I am saying either equality (identity) is true or its negation (non-equality (non-contradiction)) is true.
It is perhaps worth noting that the law of identity is subsumed under the law of non-contradiction. The violation of the law of identity is a contradiction. When one violates the law of identity they are effectively making two contradictory predications with respect to the identity or essential properties of some object. Contrary to your OP, if the law of non-contradiction is false, then the law of identity can't be true. They go hand in hand.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by Skepdick »

Leontiskos wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:51 pm It is perhaps worth noting that the law of identity is subsumed under the law of non-contradiction. The violation of the law of identity is a contradiction. When one violates the law of identity they are effectively making two contradictory predications with respect to the identity or essential properties of some object.
Bollocks.

I am not the same as myself. e.g I changed - there's no contradiction here.

There would be a contradiction if I am the same as myself AND I am not the same as myself.
Leontiskos wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:51 pm Contrary to your OP, if the law of non-contradiction is false, then the law of identity can't be true. They go hand in hand.
Huh?

Acording to excluded middle either non-contradiction is false and the negation of non-contradiction is true; OR non-contradiction is true and the negation of non-contradiction is false.
Leontiskos
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by Leontiskos »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 5:15 amAcording to excluded middle either non-contradiction is false and the negation of non-contradiction is true; OR non-contradiction is true and the negation of non-contradiction is false.
The question at hand is whether the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction are the negations of one another.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by Skepdick »

Leontiskos wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 6:23 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 5:15 amAcording to excluded middle either non-contradiction is false and the negation of non-contradiction is true; OR non-contradiction is true and the negation of non-contradiction is false.
The question at hand is whether the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction are the negations of one another.
No, they arent. By the law of identity itself the negation of identity is the negation of identity.

All of this is trivial. What's non-trivial is whether the negation of negation of identity is the law of identity.

e.g does this hold? ¬¬A ↔ A

It holds in Classical logic.
It doesn't hold in Intuitionistic logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negation
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking

Post by attofishpi »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:39 pm
Impenitent wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 11:31 pm Aristotle's best student conquered the world...

-Imp
And lost it after he died....
Surely there was never a conker large enough?

Is the moon a conker? :|
Post Reply