Philosophy Now Forum

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 4:34 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:00 pm Given truth A is not the same as truth T it necessitates that truth is contradictory given both A and T are truths.

Truth is what your senses tell you is true, on an individual level truth is experience, to the group it is agreement or collective experience. The only way contradiction enters is with differing or altered biologizes, different biology different perception.

And yet different biologies occur which contradict eachother.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:31 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 4:34 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:00 pm Given truth A is not the same as truth T it necessitates that truth is contradictory given both A and T are truths.

Truth is what your senses tell you is true, on an individual level truth is experience, to the group it is agreement or collective experience. The only way contradiction enters is with differing or altered biologizes, different biology different perception.

And yet different biologizes occur which contradict each other.

How do you mean? Differing biological organisms certainly live in somewhat different realities than our own. Alter your own biology with drugs and perceptions contradict the straight individual. Two truths about differing things do not contradict.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 11:22 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:02 pm No because they are not negations of each other. I could add a third statement:
3. x = 2

There are infinitely-many possible completions to 1 and 2.

3. x = chicken
or
3. x = (-∞, 2) ∪ (2, ∞)

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:02 pm If 3. is true, this would make both 1. and 2. false, so 1. and 2. do not constitute a contradiction.

That depends on your logical connectives.

1 AND 2 AND 3 vs 1 OR 2 OR 3.

What if x = (-∞, 2) ∪ {2} ∪ (2, ∞) does that make 1, 2 and 3 true or false?

Lemme try again. Apologies, I'm a bit slow.

G = God exists

G & ~G is a contradiction, right?

You said, if I understood you correctly, that there's no issue with contradictions. Can you explain why? I can't seem to parse contradictions, at all.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 3:53 pm Lemme try again. Apologies, I'm a bit slow.

G = God exists

G & ~G is a contradiction, right?

You said, if I understood you correctly, that there's no issue with contradictions. Can you explain why? I can't seem to parse contradictions, at all.

The trouble with all logic/language is that your interlocutors are never quite sure WHAT you are talking about. And sometimes - even you are not sure what you are talking about. There is always missing context.

Classical logic claims to describe reality "as it trully is". It's an ontological theory.
Intuitionistic claims to describe our knowledge of reality. It's an epistemic theory.

Now, you could pat yourself on the back for thinking you've managed to conjure up a "problem". An evil contradiction. But your logical system is terribly incomplete. What is it even talking about? What is "G & ~G" refering to?

You could trivially conjure up a "contradiction" if you interpret "G & ~G" as a statement in classical logic.
Or you could resolve the "contradiction" if you interpret "G & ~G" as a statement describing my transition from a theist to atheist.
God existed (G) and (&) then it didn't (~G)

The expression "G & ~G" describes the exact moment of change. The exact moment where I was a theist becoming an atheist.

Alternatively - the expression "G & ~G" could be seen to describe my epistemic sate towards God. I am uncertain as to whether God does; or doesn't exist. I simply don't know. Therefore my knowledge is in quantum superposition: G & ~G

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:09 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 3:53 pm Lemme try again. Apologies, I'm a bit slow.

G = God exists

G & ~G is a contradiction, right?

You said, if I understood you correctly, that there's no issue with contradictions. Can you explain why? I can't seem to parse contradictions, at all.

The trouble with all logic/language is that your interlocutors are never quite sure WHAT you are talking about. And sometimes - even you are not sure what you are talking about. There is always missing context.

Classical logic claims to describe reality "as it trully is". It's an ontological theory.
Intuitionistic claims to describe our knowledge of reality. It's an epistemic theory.

Now, you could pat yourself on the back for thinking you've managed to conjure up a "problem". An evil contradiction. But your logical system is terribly incomplete. What is it even talking about? What is "G & ~G" refering to?

You could trivially conjure up a "contradiction" if you interpret "G & ~G" as a statement in classical logic.
Or you could resolve the "contradiction" if you interpret "G & ~G" as a statement describing my transition from a theist to atheist.
God existed (G) and (&) then it didn't (~G)

The expression "G & ~G" describes the exact moment of change. The exact moment where I was a theist becoming an atheist.

Alternatively - the expression "G & ~G" could be seen to describe my epistemic sate towards God. I am uncertain as to whether God does; or doesn't exist. I simply don't know. Therefore my knowledge is in quantum superposition: G & ~G

That's a nice way of describing the situation and many quantum physicists would agree, including even the late great Schrödinger of the cat is both dead and alive fame. However, would Schrödinger have also said that ~(the cat is both dead and alive) at the same time? That would amount to the contradiction (p & ~p) & ~(p & ~p). Of course, of course, my point is moot, but then, the question is, we havta utilize some form of contradiction-tolerant logic (paraconsistent logic/dialetheism) or else ... all is lost.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 10:08 am That's a nice way of describing the situation and many quantum physicists would agree, including even the late great Schrödinger of the cat is both dead and alive fame. However, would Schrödinger have also said that ~(the cat is both dead and alive) at the same time? That would amount to the contradiction (p & ~p) & ~(p & ~p). Of course, of course, my point is moot, but then, the question is, we havta utilize some form of contradiction-tolerant logic (paraconsistent logic/dialetheism) or else ... all is lost.

Logic is just an instrument with limited scope/domain of applicability. It does what it does - it doesn't what it doesn't.

All's lost for philosophers who placed all their bets on logic, but there's more to life than philosophy and logic.

Reject logic and philosophy as total waste of your precious time and continuue living.

Are u saying the unexamined life is absolutely worth living? Nice!

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:00 pm Given truth A is not the same as truth T it necessitates that truth is contradictory given both A and T are truths.

A: Apples are edible.
T: Oranges are a fruit.

These are both true assertions.
These assertions are not the same.

I must be missing something here.

I can't see any contradictions present.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 8:44 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 10:08 am That's a nice way of describing the situation and many quantum physicists would agree, including even the late great Schrödinger of the cat is both dead and alive fame. However, would Schrödinger have also said that ~(the cat is both dead and alive) at the same time? That would amount to the contradiction (p & ~p) & ~(p & ~p). Of course, of course, my point is moot, but then, the question is, we havta utilize some form of contradiction-tolerant logic (paraconsistent logic/dialetheism) or else ... all is lost.

Logic is just an instrument with limited scope/domain of applicability. It does what it does - it doesn't what it doesn't.

All's lost for philosophers who placed all their bets on logic, but there's more to life than philosophy and logic.

Reject logic and philosophy as total waste of your precious time and continuue living.

Indeed, you're correct about there being "more to life than philosophy and logic", reason ain't the only game in town and for some the alternative, anti-reason (irrationality) is the only thing between them and total destruction.

Reject logic?

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:25 am Reject logic?

If not reject it - demote it to level of instrumentalism. It's a thinking tool. Nothing more.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:31 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:25 am Reject logic?

If not reject it - demote it to level of instrumentalism. It's a thinking tool. Nothing more.

Ok! I see your point! It's a good one!

"Origin of the logical.-- How did logic come into existence in man's head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished; for all that, their ways might have been truer. Those, for example, who did not know how to find often enough what is "equal" as regards both nourishment and hostile animals--those, in other words, who subsumed things too slowly and cautiously--were favored with a lesser probability of survival than those who guessed immediately upon encountering similar instances that they must be equal. The dominant tendency, however, to treat as equal what is merely similar--an illogical tendency, for nothing is really equal--is what first created any basis for logic.

In order that the concept of substance could originate--which is indispensible for logic although in the strictest sense nothing real corresponds to it--it was likewise necessary that for a long time one did not see or perceive the changes in things. The beings that did not see so precisely had an advantage over those who saw everything "in flux." At bottom, every high degree of caution in making inferences and every skeptical tendency constitute a great danger for life. No living beings would have survived if the opposite tendency--to affirm rather than suspend judgement, to err and make up things rather than wait, to assent rather than negate, to pass judgement rather than be just-- had not been bred to the point where it became extraordinarily strong."

from Nietzsche, Some Gay Science, s.111, Walter Kaufmann transl..

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:00 pm Given truth A is not the same as truth T it necessitates that truth is contradictory given both A and T are truths.

Depends on what truth A and truth T are actually declaring is true. Using language is not just following rules of grammar and spelling. The scribbles must refer to actual events or relations (married men vs bachelors), and if those events or relations contradict each other then we have a problem. I don't see a contradiction with what you have said because it leaves one wondering what truth A and truth T are about.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 3:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:31 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 4:34 pm

Truth is what your senses tell you is true, on an individual level truth is experience, to the group it is agreement or collective experience. The only way contradiction enters is with differing or altered biologizes, different biology different perception.

And yet different biologizes occur which contradict each other.

How do you mean? Differing biological organisms certainly live in somewhat different realities than our own. Alter your own biology with drugs and perceptions contradict the straight individual. Two truths about differing things do not contradict.

But are they different considering both are organisms? The continual reduction of different things to a same foundation causes a question of equivocation between "difference" and "sameness".

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 2:20 pm Are u saying the unexamined life is absolutely worth living? Nice!

This is an examination.