What LEM is not

[Magnus Anderson]

It has nothing to do with the quality or validity of logical inferences. The equivocation exists in the ambiguous use of language, not in how that language is used in reasoning or argumentation.

You have explicitly claimed that symbols represent meaningful concepts. If you are using the same symbol to represent two different meaningful concepts you are effectively destroying the 1:1 relationship between the representation and the represented.

It's been 4 months.

Have you learned what the term "equivocation" means?

Have you stopped treating the word as if it means the same thing as "using one and the same word in two different ways" ( which implies no ambiguity ) or "a misleading use of one and the same word in two different ways"?

Have you learned that equivocation is actually a type of logical mistake?

[Skepdick]

It's been 4 months.

Have you learned what the term "equivocation" means?

Have you stopped treating the word as if it means the same thing as "using one and the same word in two different ways" ( which implies no ambiguity ) or "a misleading use of one and the same word in two different ways"?

Have you learned that equivocation is actually a type of logical mistake?

It's been 4 months.

Have you learned that terms don't mean anything?

Humans mean. Using terms.

mean
/miːn/
verb
1.
intend to convey or refer to (a particular thing); signify.

Meaning (to "mean") is a verb. An action.
Terms have neither agency; nor intentionality to perform any actions.

Humans mean.
Not terms.

You really are a dumb cunt. And I do mean that.

[Age]

If, the Law of Excluded Middle ( LEM ) is captured by the statement "For every proposition P, P is either true or it is false", then what captures the propositions, which are just nonsensical, and thus neither True, nor False?


For example, is the proposition, 'This statement is false', True, False, or just not able to be determined to be False, nor True, and thus just a nonsensical proposition?

If 'it' is the latter, then is the proposition, 'For every proposition P, P is either true or it is false', actually not True, itself?

[Magnus Anderson]

Have you learned that terms don't mean anything?

We need to add this to a long list of your bizarre claims.

It's a bit hard to keep track of them all, to be honest.

Humans mean. Using terms.

mean
/miːn/
verb
1.
intend to convey or refer to (a particular thing); signify.

Meaning (to "mean") is a verb. An action.

The word "mean" is a verb. The word "meaning" is a noun.

That's some basic stuff, Skeppie.

Terms have neither agency; nor intentionality to perform any actions.

But humans can imbue them with meaning.

Humans mean.
Not terms.

Banal and irrelevant.

[Magnus Anderson]

You should check out The White Horse Dialogue, Skeppie.

[Magnus Anderson]

If, the Law of Excluded Middle ( LEM ) is captured by the statement "For every proposition P, P is either true or it is false", then what captures the propositions, which are just nonsensical, and thus neither True, nor False?


For example, is the proposition, 'This statement is false', True, False, or just not able to be determined to be False, nor True, and thus just a nonsensical proposition?

If 'it' is the latter, then is the proposition, 'For every proposition P, P is either true or it is false', actually not True, itself?

LEM really only applies to propositions. A proposition has a subject ( a reference to a portion of reality ) and a predicate ( a description of that portion of reality. ) The statement "This statement is false" has no subject, so it's not really a proposition. That's why it has no truth value.

[Age]

If, the Law of Excluded Middle ( LEM ) is captured by the statement "For every proposition P, P is either true or it is false", then what captures the propositions, which are just nonsensical, and thus neither True, nor False?


For example, is the proposition, 'This statement is false', True, False, or just not able to be determined to be False, nor True, and thus just a nonsensical proposition?

If 'it' is the latter, then is the proposition, 'For every proposition P, P is either true or it is false', actually not True, itself?

LEM really only applies to propositions. A proposition has a subject ( a reference to a portion of reality ) and a predicate ( a description of that portion of reality. ) The statement "This statement is false" has no subject, so it's not really a proposition. That's why it has no truth value.

So, what part of the words, 'This statement', is, supposedly, 'not a reference to a portion of reality', exactly?

To me, 'this statement', is, literally, 'a reference', TO 'a reference' TO 'a portion' OF 'reality', itself. How could 'this statement' NOT be 'a reference' TO 'a portion' OF 'reality', itself?

Also, to me, the words, 'is false', is 'a description' OF 'that portion' OF 'reality', itself.

So, to me, 'the proposition', 'This statement is false', has A 'subject', ['this statement'], and, A 'predicate', ['is false'], which means 'it' is, REALLY, 'A proposition'.

Although, and admitting, a Truly silly and/or nonsensical proposition, but nevertheless it is, STILL, 'A proposition', any way.

And, as I was POINTING OUT, and SHOWING, 'it' is just another 'proposition', which is NEITHER true NOR false.

Which then MEANS that there are some propositions P, where P is neither true, nor false.

As I have just, once again, showed, and proved, further, here.

[Skepdick]

The word "mean" is a verb. The word "meaning" is a noun.

The noun is defined in terms of the verb.

meaning
/ˈmiːnɪŋ/
noun
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.

That's some basic stuff, Magnus.

But humans can imbue them with meaning.

Really? What meaning did you imbue on the above sentence?
What or where was the meaning before you imbued it on the sentence?

Banal and irrelevant.

Really? What meaning did you imbue on the above sentence?
What or where was the meaning before you imbued it on the sentence?

[Magnus Anderson]

The noun is defined in terms of the verb.

You didn't say that. You said the word "meaning" is a verb.

Other than that, you're right but how does that prove your point that words have no meaning?

Again, I am afraid you have a serious issue understanding language due to your own literalist bias. Your mistake probably lies in misinterpreting what the statement "Words have meaning" means. You probably misinterpret it to mean something like, "Meaning is a physical object contained within words". You might as well say that physical objects do not have velocity.

But more importantly, as you usually do, you're merely quibbling. It's completely irrelevant whether or not words have meaning. The point is that you MISUNDERSTAND what other people are talking about.

You're such a disgrace.

meaning
/ˈmiːnɪŋ/
noun
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.

That's some basic stuff, Magnus.

True but irrelevant.

Really? What meaning did you imbue on the above sentence?
What or where was the meaning before you imbued it on the sentence?

Really? What meaning did you imbue on the above sentence?
What or where was the meaning before you imbued it on the sentence?

Another attempt at distraction by you.

Seriously, why do you even bother replying when you have absolutely nothing of substance to add?

[Skepdick]

The noun is defined in terms of the verb.

You didn't say that.

I didn't say what I actually said? You literally quoted me saying it.

You said the word "meaning" is a verb.

Yes. I said that too.

Other than that, you're right but how does that prove your point that words have no meaning?

Again, I am afraid you have a serious issue understanding language due to your own literalist bias. Your mistake probably lies in misinterpreting what the statement "Words have meaning" means.

It requires no proof. If you look at the sky and find the clouds spelling out "Words have meaning".

What would that mean? Absolutely nothing. It would be a meaningless coincidence.

You probably misinterpret it to mean something like, "Meaning is a physical object contained within words". You might as well say that physical objects do not have velocity.

I am probably interpreting the possessive noun "have" to imply that the thing being had (meaning) is intrinsic to the thing having it (the words).

But more importantly, as you usually do, you're merely quibbling. It's completely irrelevant whether or not words have meaning. The point is that you MISUNDERSTAND what other people are talking about.

If I misunderstood you I wouldn't be correcting you.

I understand what you are talking about.
And I also understand why you are wrong.

You're such a disgrace.

A lesser disgrace than your mom or her son.

[Magnus Anderson]

I didn't say what I actually said? You literally quoted me saying it.

See? Stupid, lazy-ass, pointless objections. And you wonder why noone takes you seriously and treats you like the fool that you are.

Of course, I was talking about what you said earlier. Was that too difficult to understand? Are you REALLY that dumb?

You said the word "meaning" is a verb.

Yes. I said that too.

And that is trivially false.

Other than that, you're right but how does that prove your point that words have no meaning?

It requires no proof.

You're already being perceived as a very dogmatic person. It serves you no good to further reinforce it.

If you look at the sky and find the clouds spelling out "Words have meaning".

What would that mean? Absolutely nothing. It would be a meaningless coincidence.

It does have meaning. But again, that's not the main point. Focus on the main point. Don't lose yourself in irrelevant details.

I am probably interpreting the possessive noun "have" to imply that the thing being had (meaning) is intrinsic to the thing having it (the words).

Reinforcing the expressed doubts.

If I misunderstood you I wouldn't be correcting you.

Oh, you do that all the time. You are merely not aware of it. And you're too arrogant to see how blinded you are.

I understand what you are talking about.
And I also understand why you are wrong.

You wish. Keep soothing yourself.

[Skepdick]

Are you REALLY that dumb?

Asks the guy who says I didn't say what I actually said.

And that is trivially false.

I mean, you've confused every other concept so far. I guess it was only a matter of time you mixed up truth and falsehood.

You're already being perceived as a very dogmatic person.

And I should give a fuck how I am being perceived...why?

It serves you no good to further reinforce it.

Yeah, well. I guess I am not a self-serving wanker like you...

It does have meaning.

Really? Please, do tell us! What do random patterns without an author which happen to resemble English letters/sentences mean?

Oh, you do that all the time. You are merely not aware of it. And you're too arrogant to see how blinded you are.

I am pretty aware of it. That's why every time you are wrong - I point it out.

To a wanker like you epistemic humility sure looks like arrogance.

[Magnus Anderson]

Asks the guy who says I didn't say what I actually said.

This is what you said, Skeppie. It's right there for all to see.

Meaning (to "mean") is a verb. An action.

You didn't say it's a noun defined in terms of the verb. You said it's a verb. Own it.

What do random patterns without an author which happen to resemble English letters/sentences mean?

The meaning of these random patterns is established by the language you're using to interpret them.

Again, you're quibbling. It's one distraction after another. You rarely do anything else.

And again, you're missing the point. The point being that you do not understand what the word "equivocation" means.

[Skepdick]

This is what you said, Skeppie. It's right there for all to see.

I know that, guy! So does everyone else. The only one who doesn't seem to know it is you.

You didn't say it's a noun defined in terms of the verb.

I did. It's right there for all to see. Why can't you see it?

The noun is defined in terms of the verb.

meaning
/ˈmiːnɪŋ/
noun
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.

"meant" is the past tense of the verb "mean".

You said it's a verb.

I did say that yes. I said both of those things.

Own it.

Precisely what I am doing.

The meaning of these random patterns is established by the language you're using to interpret them.

You seem temporally confused. The noun "meaning" is defined in terms of the verb "meant". Which is the past tense of "mean".

Who or what meant the random patterns you are attempting to interpret?

Again, you're quibbling. It's one distraction after another. You rarely do anything else.

You continue to perfectly characterize yourself. Only if you stopped externalizing it you'd make some progress on your self-awareness.

And again, you're missing the point. The point being that you do not understand what the word "equivocation" means.

It's true. I don't know how to come to understand false things.

[Magnus Anderson]

Who or what meant the random patterns you are attempting to interpret?

You're quibbling. There's no need for anyone to mean anything by those random patterns. They have meaning insofar there is a language with which they can be interpreted.

You need to grow up, Skeppie. You're still just a tiny little spoiled child.