henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 3:40 pm
Included Middle is an idea proposed by Stéphane Lupasco (in The Principle of Antagonism and the Logic of Energy in 1951), further developed by Joseph E. Brenner and Basarab Nicolescu, and also supported by Werner Heisenberg. The notion pertains to physics and quantum mechanics, and may have wider application in other domains such as information theory and computing, epistemology, and theories of consciousness. The Included Middle is a theory proposing that logic has a three-part structure. The three parts are the positions of asserting something, the negation of this assertion, and a third position that is neither or both. Lupasco labeled these states A, not-A, and T. The Included Middle stands in opposition to classical logic stemming from Aristotle. In classical logic, the Principle of Non-contradiction specifically proposes an Excluded Middle, that no middle position exists, tertium non datur (there is no third option). In traditional logic, for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true (there is either A or not-A). While this could be true for circumscribed domains that contain only A and not-A, there may also be a larger position not captured by these two claims, and that is articulated by the Included Middle................................
This...
The three parts are the positions of asserting something, the negation of this assertion, and a third position that is neither or both.
...makes no sense to me.
I say your pants are on fire (I assert sumthin').
You say your pants are not on fire, and you show me your non-burning pants (you negated my assertion).
Where the hell does a third position come into play?
And: color me stupid but I don't see what any of this has to do with paradoxes.
I haven't caught up with the thread in completion yet. So I apologize if my response has been answered similarly by others.
The term, "contradiction" literally tells you that something is "con-" (= with), "-tra-" (=third), "-dict-" (=spoken/dictated), "-ion" (=particle).
Although such contradictions may seem useless to speak of under the assumptions of most things said, reality DOES hold certain factors that are sincerely not consistent with respect to the whole of totality. If there were no contradiction to reality as a whole, we'd have perfect 'consistency' in non-existence. Forces, if they are to have any ultimate causation, have to either have some justification for going from non-existence to existence. The alternative is for everything to be true at all times (in totality, not necessarily one particular universe). If absolutely everything was true, then this would include absolutely nothing. If only specific things are UNIQUELY true, then the question would be why some perfectly finite set of truths exist if you cannot contrast them with what is not true.
To understand how a contradiction can be true, take this statement: "I am alive and dead." While this may seem non-resolvable, there is an infinite possibilities in which this is true, of which one example is: "I am alive and dead ....in the period between two years before I was born and two years after." This is just one possible interval which justifies how this can be true. Reality as a whole CAN permit this true when we find a greater domain with respect to time. Totality holds all possible truths in a kind of 'simultaneous' way. [It's hard for us to escape the words we use for time, like 'simultaneous'.] All times are contained in totality and so we are just limited LOCALLY to perceive one specific reality. So our 'finite' reality is perceived to resolve paradox BY the illusion of time.
Note that if you are to ask what a real 'simultaneous' event is, this proves the nature of contradiction as real: a sincerely 'simultaneous' event is an interval that has NO TIME! That is, if there is a 'point' in time that exists, it is equally non-existing.....a paradox.
Politics and social constructs are ALWAYS contradictory because they deal with what is 'right' versus 'wrong' when nature itself is indifferent to this illusion (or better, delusion). But where people AGREE to certain things, we can show that people are acting hypocritical to some belief with respect to some morale they hold. This then is where we can use contradiction when we EXPECT something to be consistent.
Where things are contradictory in science, like the arguments surrounding interpretations on Quantum Mechanics, some argue that such appearances only indicate that something is "incomplete". That was the point about the Incompleteness Theorem mentioned in the article.
In general, I think that contradiction IS the engine of reality. That is, I think that all of reality only exists precisely because of a major contradiction regarding origins: that if reality came into existence from nothing, it comes about due TO the fact that a totality that might be identical to nothing would be both true and false. To such a reality, this is alright because where something is absolutely nothing, it lacks even any
rule of 'consistency' that requires it to
obey.
Thus, contradition and paradox are useful to understand even for more than curiosity or fun.
