What LEM is not

[Skepdick]

If LEM were true then the statement "Truth is valuable" would be either true or false.

If it's true - justify.
If it's false - justify.

I don't have to do that.

You only have to do that IF you accept LEM.
You claim to accept LEM. So you have to do that.

So do you accept LEM or don't you accept LEM?

You have to learn that your demands won't be fulfilled unless the other side shares your opinion that it is necessary to fulfill them for the task at hand.

This has nothing to do with MY opinion.
This is about YOUR opinion.

You CLAIM to accept LEM then assign a truth-value to "Truth is valuable".

Or is that one of the propositions exempt from LEM?

If you want to have it both ways - say so. Either way - everybody reading this and observing your behaviour now has indirect access to your intellectual dishonesty. The pattern of evasion and inconsistency speaks louder than your words.

And you also have to learn that you thinking that something is necessary does not mean it's truly necessary ( which means you need to keep an open mind about it and discuss it if it proves necessary which it clearly is. )

Yeah... you think LEM is necessary. But it does not mean it's truly necessary...

You get the high score for irony. You've ASSUMED LEM necessary, not PROVEN it necessary.
Whereas I keep demonstrating to you that LEM is NOT necessary. It's merely sufficient. Sometimes.

You don't even understand the difference between an open and a closed mind.

You're a terrible person to have a conversation with.

It's not possible to have a conversation with you. You are incapable of self-reflection or sefl-correction.

This is more like talking to a wall.

That's why I asked you to leave this thread long time ago ( which you refused to do, preferring to force yourself where your presence is absolutely undesirable, something that only a specific type of person would do. )

Shame. Don't make you problems mine.

Your entire confusion is accepting LEM in principle; and then refusing to map instances of LEM to concrete truth-values.
It's identical to me asking you whether 4 is odd; or even. But then refusing to say which one.

What do your "acceptance" amount to without concrete application? Lip service?

[Magnus Anderson]

Access is access is access.

You said "direct access". You didn't say "access".

Direct or indirect - you are still claiming to have access.

So do you.

You can't talk about what LEM is if you don't have an access to what was meant by LEM.

And if you're claiming that you do not have an access to what was meant by LEM, then you shouldn't be talking about what LEM is, since you don't know what it is.

But you are talking about what it is.

You have a hard time understanding. Anything.

Talking to your mirror again, aren't you?

[Skepdick]

Access is access is access.

You said "direct access". You didn't say "access".

I did say access. It's right there in the phrase "direct access".
It's also in the phrase "indirect access".

Because access is access is access.

You can't talk about what LEM is if you don't have an access to what was meant by LEM.

ROFL. Ironic irony is ironic. I do have access. Direct; or indirect - I have access.

And if you're claiming that you do not have an access to what was meant by LEM, then you shouldn't be talking about what it is, since you don't know what it is.

But you are talking about what it is.

So which one are you claiming to be true?

1. I have direct access.
2. I have indirect access.
3. I have NO access e.g. I have neither direct access nor indirect access.

Have you gone from 2 to 3.
Have you gone from bivalence to non-bivalence?

Again.

Talking to your mirror again, aren't you?

Are you confusing yourself for a mirror now?

[Magnus Anderson]

Guy, I will start reporting you to moderators if you continue spamming in this thread. You've been doing it for too long.

[Skepdick]

Guy, I will start reporting you to moderators if you continue spamming in this thread. You've been doing it for too long.

Why do you hate free speech?

[Gary Childress]

The words have their meanings or definitions in dictionaries, and they seem to be widely understood for the most part. Perhaps their concepts could be part of some universal human grammar, I don't know (not very knowledgeable about linguistics).

If use is meaning then dictionaries cannot be authorities on the use of language.

This is the position the OP has burried his heels into. He insists that words only mean what he intends them to mean. Any meaning other than the intended meaning is a misinterpretation on part of his interlocutors.

Of course, he smuggled in a presupposition that he didn't tell you about.

He's pretending to be a mind-reader who has direct access to the intentions of the original author of LEM.

Dictionaries are not authorities on language use. Meaning changes, also known as semantic drift. Are you suggesting that words don't mean anything, that meaningful statements are little more than symbols of gobbledygook that don't tie into anything?

[Skepdick]

Dictionaries are not authorities on language use. Meaning changes, also known as semantic drift. Are you suggesting that words don't mean anything, that meaningful statements are little more than symbols of gobbledygook that don't tie into anything?

I'm suggesting that there's a non-linguistic; performative aspect to meaning. A practical side-effect of using language in a so-called "meaningful" way.

As a direct, empirical example - the OP perpetually defends and linguistically asserts LEM.
And when asked to identify and assign a truth-value to instances of LEM - he doesn't.

So does this mean that he accepts LEM or does it mean he doesn't?

The side-effect of his actions is precisely what's causing the semantic drift. The common dictionary meaning of "accepting LEM" is literally drifting away from its definition through Magnus's pattern of behavior.

The meaning becomes hollowed out through the pattern of: Asserting acceptance of LEM -> Refusing to apply it -> Repeat

[Gary Childress]

As a direct, empirical example - the OP perpetually defends and linguistically asserts LEM.
And when asked to identify and assign a truth-value to instances of LEM - he doesn't.

I see. So you've asked him to assign a truth value to something and he refuses to? What did he refuse to assign a truth value to? Was it to the LEM itself? Or was it to something more particular?

[Skepdick]

As a direct, empirical example - the OP perpetually defends and linguistically asserts LEM.
And when asked to identify and assign a truth-value to instances of LEM - he doesn't.

I see. So you've asked him to assign a truth value to something and he refuses to? What did he refuse to assign a truth value to? Was it to the LEM itself? Or was it to something more particular?

A number of things including LEM itself.

Most specifically propositions about values themselves such as "Truth is inherently valuable".

Either those are ontological truths (because Classical logic with LEM is an ontological theory); or the proposition is neither true nor false.

[Gary Childress]

As a direct, empirical example - the OP perpetually defends and linguistically asserts LEM.
And when asked to identify and assign a truth-value to instances of LEM - he doesn't.

I see. So you've asked him to assign a truth value to something and he refuses to? What did he refuse to assign a truth value to? Was it to the LEM itself? Or was it to something more particular?

A number of things including LEM itself.

Most specifically propositions about values themselves such as "Truth is inherently valuable".

Either those are ontological truths (because Classical logic with LEM is an ontological theory); or the proposition is neither true nor false.

So if I said Truth is inherently valuable is true, would that be false?

[Magnus Anderson]

So you've asked him to assign a truth value to something and he refuses to? What did he refuse to assign a truth value to? Was it to the LEM itself? Or was it to something more particular?

He's not telling the truth. I've presented a proof of LEM in the opening post. Obviously, I think that LEM is true. I'n fact, I've stated that LEM is true more than once in this thread.

The disagreement is rooted in his belief that the statement "X is A" and the statement "X is either A or B" are incompatible with each other. In other words, he thinks that a proposition cannot both be "true" and "either true or false". So if LEM is true, then LEM is NOT either true or false, thereby contradicting itself. That's his reasoning.

I've explained why he's wrong -- probably more than once -- but it had no effect on him. I will do it one more time in the next post.

[Magnus Anderson]

"X is either A or B" means "X belongs to the set of elements { A, B }".

If X is A, then X belongs to { A, B }. If that's the case, the statement is true.

If X is B, then X belongs to { A, B }. If that's the case, the statement is true.

If X is something else, i.e. if it's neither A nor B, then it does not belong to { A, B }. In that case, the statement is false.

As can be seen, both "X is A" and "X is B" are perfectly compatible with "X is either A or B". Not only that, the latter can be deduced from both "X is A" and "X is B".

That basically refutes Skepdick's claim that "X is A" and "X is either A or B" contradict each other.

His entire argument so far has been that "X is A" and "X is either A or B" contradict each other because "A" and "either A or B" are two different symbols denoting two different concepts. And although that is true, it is irrelevant, because the claim is not that "X is the symbol 'Either A or B'" nor "X is the concept attached to the symbol 'Either A or B'" but "X belongs to the set { A, B }".

This confusion probably stems from his excessive focus on programming. In programming, a variable represents a portion of computer memory that stores a symbol, a sequence of bits, that represents something, e.g. a number. These symbols can denote pretty much anything. They can denote specific quantities such as "1" just as they can denote categories of quantities such as "Either 1 or 2". At any given point in time, a variable can only store one symbol, i.e. one sequence of bits. It cannot store two different symbols at the same time meaning that "x" cannot store both "1" and "Either 1 or 2" at the same time. Claiming that a variable stores both "1" and "Either 1 or 2" at the same time would indeed be a contradiction.

But none of that programming stuff actually applies to LEM.

It all boils down to him actually not understanding LEM.

[Skepdick]

"X is either A or B" means "X belongs to the set of elements { A, B }".

Equivocation.

"X is either A or B" is a binding statement containing a free variable.
"A is either A or B" is a statement containing NO free variable.

Given that X is declared to be either A or B then it becomes impossible for X to be anything other than A; or B.

If X is A, then X belongs to { A, B }. If that's the case, the statement is true.
If X is B, then X belongs to { A, B }. If that's the case, the statement is true.

And if X is neither A nor B this contradicts the claim that "X is either A or B".

If X is something else, i.e. if it's neither A nor B, then it does not belong to { A, B }. In that case, the statement is false.

Can X be anything other than "A or B" or not?

As can be seen, both "X is A" and "X is B" are perfectly compatible with "X is either A or B". Not only that, the latter can be deduced from both "X is A" and "X is B".

Contradiction. If X is "either A or B" then X can't be C.

That basically refutes Skepdick's claim that "X is A" and "X is either A or B" contradict each other.

My claim is that you don't understand the difference between a TYPE (X is either A or B).
And a value. X=A, X=B.

But none of that programming stuff actually applies to LEM.

Contradiction. Term types are different to term values.

It all boils down to him actually not understanding LEM.

Contradiction.

The TYPE of LEM is LEM itself. LEM is either True or False.

What is the VALUE of LEM?

[Magnus Anderson]

As to why I refused to fulfill his demand to prove the claim "Truth is valuable", it is because it's irrelevant.

There is no obligation to answer every single question someone asks. If a question is irrelevant, it's not merely okay to ignore it, it SHOULD be ignored, otherwise you will end up wasting your time.

You can't just make demands and expect others to fulfill them. If other people don't perceive them as relevant, you will have to prove their relevance. Without resolving that issue, no discussion can move forward. Simply whining about how other people don't agree with you is futile and destructive.

Skepdick has done very little to prove the importance of proving the statement, "Truth is valuable".

The fact of the matter is that, here in this thread, I don't have to do anything other than to prove that every proposition is either true or false and that there are no exceptions. I've already done that in more than one post in this thread and so far he hasn't found a single genuine flaw with my arguments.

But now he's asking me to prove that the statement "Truth is valuable" is true.

Why should I do that?

Consider every possible scenario.

1. Is "Truth is valuable" a propositional statement?

1.1. If yes, do we know what proposition it represents, i.e. what portion of reality it is describing and how it is describing it? Do we know what is meant by "truth" and do we know what is meant by "valuable"?

1.1.1. If we do, why do we have to prove that it is true? Do we also have to prove that the Earth is flat? Do we also have to prove every single proposition that we can think of? Of course not. It's enough to prove that every proposition is either true or false.

1.1.2. If we don't know what proposition it represents, we can't prove the statement because we don't understand what it means. We have to learn what it means first. But the fact that we don't know what it means does not mean it's not true. It simply means that we are ignorant of its meaning and that as a consequence of that we can neither prove it true nor false.

1.2. If the statement is a non-propositional one, then it has no truth value. As such, there's nothing we can do to prove it true or false. But that has nothing to do with LEM because LEM concerns itself solely with propositional statements.

[Skepdick]

As to why I refused to fulfill his demand to prove the claim "Truth is valuable", it is because it's irrelevant.

Contradiction.

Given your commitment to LEM

Either "Truth is valuable" is relevant (e.g it's true) And you need to prove it.
OR
"Truth is valuable" is NOT relevant (e.g it's false) <--- this is your claim. Prove it.

Both "Truth is valuable"; and "Truth is valuable" is relevant to the dialogue are instances of LEM.

Insisting that an instance of LEM is not relevant to LEM is a contradiction.