Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:56 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:14 am
Don't waste your time beating round the bush.
The main principle here is the
Law of Non-Contradiction i.e.
A circle cannot be a square at the same time and same sense.
A circle cannot be a non-circle and a square a non-square at the same time and same sense.
Some try to use paraconsistent logic to overcome the LNC but that invoke different senses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic
The picture does not show the "square" being a circle in the same time in the same sense as both exist through eachother as an object of relation. The picture above shows a figure of geometric relations which exists as a thing in itself. A "square-circle" is a unit of 2 relations (square and circle) and in these respects no contradiction occurs.
The circle is a non-circle through the square (considering the square, along with all geometric figures) is a grade of the circle.
The square is a non-square through the circle (considering the circle is a square without angles) is a grade of the square.
Either way one seeks to define the square of circle, the foundational measuring point of the one allows the other to exist as a grade of the prior.
Triadic logic, in the basic hegelian sense, can be applied where the percievably contradictory object exists as is and the contradictory aspect of the square and circle can exist in the same time and same place considering the angles of the square and circumference of the point both extend from the 0d points which form the foundations of both. In these respects the square and circle exist through the 0d space which form them as this void is a common median.
The law of non-contradiction is addressed on this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=24403
and can be observed as "dually" negating itself.
You are beating around the bush again.
Note this,
It is a picture of old-young lady.
It is the same as you throwing in an image of a square with a circle inside.
With a picture one can write and draw any picture.
One paper one can write 1 + 1 = 5.
Or one can draw a human with elephant head can called that an elephant man.
The fact is in reality there is no such thing as a square which is a circle at the same time and sense.
Many had tried to counter the law of non-contradiction and I have read many of them.
None of them have been proven to be true. All of them involve some sort of deception and conflation of the senses/perspective.
Contradiction is a deficiency in truth, and hence a deception, and to counter the law of non-contradiction it must be shown to be contradictory and hence nullify itself leaving only truth remaining.
And show the proof as the picture you provided is three pictures in one: And old woman, young woman and woman with the picture itself observing two perspectives synthesizing into a third, with the breakdown of the third being the foundation from which the two perspective arise. The picture observes a dualism as one angle of awareness is the negative of the other (the old woman is not a young woman, the young woman is not an old woman) with both perspectives being simultaneously positive and negative in the same time in different respects.
What we observe as a contradiction is merely a deficiency in structure where 1+1=5 contains rational elements in themselves, but the statement is deficient in balance. Hence 1+1=5 as a contradiction, is a 1+1=5 as a deficient statement, with 1+1=5 containing an infinite number of variables to observe its completion as 1x+1x=5, 1x+1y=5, etc as a deficient statement is one without a proper form or function and hence is deficient in any limits.
The problem of the law of non-contradiction is that it is contradictory in the respect that -P observes a statement of deficiency where -P observes an absence of P and fundamentally exists if and only if P exists with P existing fundamentally as infinite variables in itself.
In these respects while P cannot equal -P, -P exists if and only if there is P, hence the law of non-contradiction is a law about deficiency and effectively observes a dualism between positive and negative values.
These values exist fundamentally as an observation of relation where P is observed if and only if there is -P and viceversa as a positive defines a negative and a negative cannot be observed without a positive.
In these respects the law of non-contradiction observes a dualism of “+” and “-“ existing through P as a neutral medial variable which P is the limit through which “+” and “-“ exist as limits and simultaneously unlimited in the respect “P” is a variable conducive to infinity.
The P, as a variable, effectively takes the place of infinity and in these respects the law of non-contradiction observes a dualism of positive infinity and negative infinity where this negative infinity, as a statement of relation of one infinity relative to another, necessitates multiple infinities existing within infinity. The reason for this is a deficiency in infinity is still an infinity, but observes a separation of infinity under multiple infinities as a deficiency in infinity observes a separation of infinity. However infinity cannot be separated without this act of separation resulting in multiple infinities. These multiple infinities effectively exist as ratios of the 1 infinity as unity, with these multiple infinities (while infinite) observing finiteness as the relation of parts. In these respects this negation of P, as negative infinity, is a relativistic statement observing a relation of parts as a negative is fundamentally an act of separation.
These multiple infinities within infinity effectively observes that infinite exists simultaneously as a temporal finite reality relative to the 1 infinity it composes. In these respects finiteness is the relation of multiple infinities with this multiplicity observing each infinity as simultaneously positive and negative at the same time in different respects where one positive infinity is the negative of another and vice versa.
The statement of P=P observes an inherent sense of separation in the respect that equality of variable to itself observes a separation in locality as what is unified cannot be equal to itself unless it exists through multiple localities. We can observe the variable of P existing in multiple localities within the statement of “P=P” as the equality sign observes P as directed both to the left and right of it and is effectively replicated through “=” as an observation of relation.
This separation of P through P=P effectively observes (P=P)= -P as this equality is a deficiency of P, with (P=P)؞-P observing P=P being separate from -P. In further terms P=P directs itself toward -P as the separation of P through P=P is through P as P negating itself where the separation of P is an absence of P. -P as a deficiency of P, exist through P fundamentally being separated, in turn observe P being directed back towards (P=P).
In these respects (P=P) ⇄ -P where relativistically speaking one cannot exist without the other and the positive and negative values inevitably lead one being directed to another through the variable (P in this case).
In simpler terms to say 1=1 observes two 1’s as 1 and 2 where this separation of the 1 observes -1 as the limit of separation. The equality of 1 is the separation of 1 with equality as “=” existing if and only if there are multiple 1’s. Equality in these respects is a statement of relation as separation where this separation of quantities is subject to quantification itself.
So 1=1 as 1 statement is reduced to 1 through the separation implied by “=” as -1. In these respects the law of non-contradiction observing P does not equal -P observes P and -P as fundamentally connected through a dualism in one respect under P as this absence of equality observes an absence as separation. In a separate respect P does not equal -P is a contradiction as P=P effectively exists as -P.