All western/analytic Philosophy is bullshit

[Eodnhoj7]

Yet relativity exists. To prove non contradiction wrong, all one has to do is apply recursion and self referentiality to it. A computer isn't needed for proof. It works as a proof, but it is not needed.

It helps. Computers are objective. Humans aren't.

Or some such bullshit distinction that analytic philosophers draw.

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) v ((P=P)=/=(-P=-P))

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28741

Exists as is, at best a philosopher can do is ignore it.

[Skepdick]

False, because if if has no truth value it is a statement with no merit.

It's a statement about an empirical phenomenon. I am merely reporting what I am observing.

If you think it has merit it's you who is assigning it merit - not me.

Either you trust my report/observation or you don't. Either way - you can make the same observation I am making and decide for yourself.

[FlashDangerpants]

Like I have demonstrated 100 times before, here is a real-world logical system which evaluates (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ True
https://repl.it/repls/ShowyMiniGuiltware

I may not be a Ruby guy, but...

Code: Select all

$toggle = false

def p
  $toggle = (not $toggle)
end

print (p and (not p)) == true

Surely all that does is evaluate the p and not p sequentially, not at once, whilst flipping p between True and False in the process.
Sort of cheating by inserting a modality, no?

[Skepdick]

Surely all that does is evaluate the p and not p sequentially, not at once, whilst flipping p between True and False in the process.
Sort of cheating by inserting a modality, no?

Sure. You understand WHY it evaluates to false.

"P and not P" is a sequential (imperative) expression. It involves three operations.
1. Measure P
2. Measure not-P
3. AND 1 and 2.

If you insist that "P and not P" needs to be evaluated "at once" you need to define what that means.

In particular, I am really curious how you would measure P and not-P simultaneously.

[FlashDangerpants]

Surely all that does is evaluate the p and not p sequentially, not at once, whilst flipping p between True and False in the process.
Sort of cheating by inserting a modality, no?

Sure. You understand WHY it evaluates to false.

"P and not P" is a sequential expression.

If you insist that "P and not P" needs to be evaluated "at once" you need to define what that means.

Irrelevant. The law of non contradiction doesn't break if the asserted P is that henry is wearing a hat, and that then henry takes off his hat, so now henry is not wearing a hat. But your code blatantly does exactly that.

[Skepdick]

Irrelevant. The law of non contradiction doesn't break if the asserted P is that henry is wearing a hat, and that then henry takes off his hat, so now henry is not wearing a hat. But your code blatantly does exactly that.

Change absolutely breaks any and all asserted P, unless you are explicit about your time-interval. What my code does is irrelevant because it's a white box (you can see what it's doing.- you are operating under omniscience). Suppose P was a black box to you - a noumenon.

Your first sampling/observation of P would read True (1)
Your second sampling/observation of P would read False (0)

The LNC states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
Given that you are unable to make two observations of the same thing and at the same time, define what you mean by "the same time" ?

If henry is wearing a hat, but takes it off 5.391247 * 10^-44 seconds later is that "the same time"?
If henry is wearing a hat, but takes it off 10000 billion years later - is that "the same time"?

This is circular reasoning. The very definition of time is the distance between two events.

[FlashDangerpants]

Dude. You cheated and you got caught. Just eat the loss like a grown up.

[Skepdick]

Dude. You cheated and you got caught. Just eat the loss like a grown up.

Change over time is not cheating, moron. Change is fact of this universe.

That you are unable to properly define the notion of "sameness" in a way that it can account for change/time is your problem - eat that like a grown up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

[FlashDangerpants]

moron.

You don't have to ramp up the conflict and get all butthurt and alpha male at me either. I am giving you good advice, you would be smart to take it.

[Skepdick]

You don't have to ramp up the conflict and get all butthurt and alpha male at me either. I am giving you good advice, you would be smart to take it.

Then stop projecting your butthurt alpha-maleness at me.

It's piss-poor advice to ignore physics for the sake of preserving the religion of Philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

[FlashDangerpants]

Your code did not assert a contradiction. It evaluated true == true.

None of these additional shenanigans are helping you.

[Skepdick]

Your code did not assert a contradiction. It evaluated true == true.

Bullshit. My code asserted/evaluated ¬(P ∧ ¬P) as False.

That's exactly how the LNC is defined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p).

None of these additional shenanigans are helping you.

If you don't like the incoherent definition of a contradiction - fix it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your code did not assert a contradiction. It evaluated true == true.

Bullshit. My code asserted/evaluated ¬(P ∧ ¬P) as False.

It evaluated true == true.

It did.

In fact, all it takes to break your code is to evaluate p and not p in a different order.

Code: Select all

$toggle = false

def p
  $toggle = (not $toggle)
end

print ((not p) and p) == true

[Skepdick]

It evaluated true == true.

It did.

It evaluated P and ¬P.

In fact, all it takes to break your code is to evaluate p and not p in a different order.

The LNC doesn't prescribe evaluation order. All you are demonstrating is that ordering matters in the real world. Like Causality or something. Well done! We'll make a physics out of you.

You are really fighting a losing battle here.

Is the LNC normative or descriptive?

[FlashDangerpants]

It evaluated true == true.

It did.

It evaluated P and ¬P.

Only by setting them to the same value so that they weren't contradictory. Which is a useless way to test a law about contradictions.

They weren't contradictions. They weren't a valid counter to the LNC.
You tested (P ∧ P) ⇔ True and you just pretended to be testing the other thing.