raw_thought wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:21 pm
No. It is raining at a specific point in spacetime and it is not raining at a different point in spacetime. That is not a contradiction.
It's raining here. Now.
it's not raining here. Now.
Same space coordinates.
Different time coordinates.
The LNC is expressed as P ∧ ¬P
Which spacetime coordinate does P represent?
Which spacetime coordinate does ¬P represent?
raw_thought wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:12 pm
from a contradiction everything follows
That is not true in all logics. It's only true in explosive logics.
The principle of explosion ALWAYS leads to all conclusions in conventional logic. Are we to debate paraconsistent logic? Most logicians believe that paraconsistent logic only applies at the quantum level. How a square circle can exist is beyond me.
raw_thought wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:21 pm
No. It is raining at a specific point in spacetime and it is not raining at a different point in spacetime. That is not a contradiction.
It's raining here. Now.
it's not raining here. Now.
Same space coordinates.
Different time coordinates.
The LNC is expressed as P ∧ ¬P
Which spacetime coordinate does P represent?
Which spacetime coordinate does ¬P represent?
And that is not a contradiction. If I say that I have a female sibling and a male sibling I am not contradicting myself.
raw_thought wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:27 pm
The principle of explosion ALWAYS leads to all conclusions in conventional logic.
Yes. In conventional logic.
Why are you biased towards conventional logic over unconventional logic?
raw_thought wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:27 pm
Are we to debate paraconsistent logic? Most logicians believe that paraconsistent logic only applies at the quantum level.
I am debating logic. I don't discriminate against any. particular logic system.
raw_thought wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:27 pm
How a square circle can exist is beyond me.
magine a time line. a_____b_____c. "a" relative to "b" is in the past. "b" relative to "c" is in the past.
"b" relative to "a" is in the future. However, "b" relative to "c" is in the past. Einstein was saying that there is no absolute past or absolute future points. Your "objection" is silly. Einstein was not saying that 2 events cannot be related by a past future relationship. Your objection is like if I say, " Detroit is west of New York and east of San Francisco. " Then you say " do not be daft there is a difference between east and west. "
My "now" might not be your "now". However, that does not mean that I can travel into my past. . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativit ... multaneity
Of course you can dispute Relativity. But just remember that it has been confirmed! https://www.space.com/8024-einstein-gen ... irmed.html