Philosophy Now Forum

On the one hand Philosophy insists that contradictions are errors: (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ False is a normative rule.
On the other hand contradictions exist. Ontologically, factually, logically, objectively and truly.

Like I have demonstrated 100 times before, here is a real-world logical system which evaluates (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ True
https://repl.it/repls/ShowyMiniGuiltware

It follows trivially that the following two propositions are incompatible with each other:

P1. Contradictions do not exist (falsified by the program above)
P2. The is-ought gap is insurmountable.

Claiming that contradictions do not exist is falsified by empirically facts.

Fuck this religion.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 11:43 pm On the one hand Philosophy insists that contradictions are errors: (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ False is a normative rule.
On the other hand contradictions exist. Ontologically, factually, logically, objectively and truly.

Like I have demonstrated 100 times before, here is areal-world logical system which evaluates (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ True
https://repl.it/repls/ShowyMiniGuiltware

It follows trivially that the following two propositions are incompatible with each other:

P1. Contradictions do not exist (falsified by the program above)
P2. The is-ought gap is insurmountable.

Claiming that contradictions do not exist is falsified by empirically facts.

Fuck this religion.

Contradictions exist as the seperation of assertions, yet assertions still exist. A contradiction should be viewed as the foundation for philosophy.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:04 am Contradictions exist as the seperation of assertions, yet assertions still exist. A contradiction should be viewed as the foundation for philosophy.

To claim that contradictions are foundations is equivalent to claiming that contradictions are true, not false (as prescribed).

Choose:

A. (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ True
B. (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ False

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:10 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:04 am Contradictions exist as the seperation of assertions, yet assertions still exist. A contradiction should be viewed as the foundation for philosophy.

To claim that contradictions are foundations is equivalent to claiming that contradictions are true, not false (as prescribed).

Contradictions are true as the interplay between thesis and antithesis. Contradiction necessitates synthesis and philosophy is synthetic.

As to the laws of identity, they contradict themselves...nothing new:

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) v ((P=P)=/=(-P=-P))

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28741

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 11:43 pm On the one hand Philosophy insists that contradictions are errors: (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ False is a normative rule.
On the other hand contradictions exist. Ontologically, factually, logically, objectively and truly.

Like I have demonstrated 100 times before, here is areal-world logical system which evaluates (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ True
https://repl.it/repls/ShowyMiniGuiltware

It follows trivially that the following two propositions are incompatible with each other:

P1. Contradictions do not exist (falsified by the program above)
P2. The is-ought gap is insurmountable.

Claiming that contradictions do not exist is falsified by empirically facts.

Fuck this religion.

What does the word 'philosophy' mean to you?

If the word 'philosophy' does not literally mean "bullshit" to you, then, contrary to what you believe, 'philosophy' is not bullshit.

'Bullshit' is bullshit. While 'philosophy' is; whatever you want it to be. If you want 'all of philosophy' to be bullshit, then bullshit is what it will be, and also what you will get.

Besides this who says P1; "Contradictions do not exist"?

Your words are sometimes living proof that contradictions do actually exist.

As for computer programming computers are just like children's toys. You can get them to calculate whatever you want them to. But doing this will not prove what you trying to prove here.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:16 am What does the word 'philosophy' mean to you?

Any sub-culture of humanity which holds (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ False as normative/prescriptive rather than descriptive.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:16 am If the word 'philosophy' does not literally mean "bullshit" to you, then, contrary to what you believe, 'philosophy' is not bullshit.

Grow up.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:16 am Besides this who says P1; "Contradictions do not exist"?

1. Aristotle and all of his followers.
2. Mathematicians
3. Analytic philosophers

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:16 am As for computer programming computers are just like children's toys. You can get them to calculate whatever you want them to.

Computers obey the laws of physics. If you can program them to calculate a contradiction; then contradictions are consistent with physics.

This supports the argument that non-contradiction is a value, not a fact. Non-contradiction is an ought, not an is

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:16 am What does the word 'philosophy' mean to you?

Any sub-culture of humanity which holds (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ False as normative/prescriptive rather than descriptive.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:16 am If the word 'philosophy' does not literally mean "bullshit" to you, then, contrary to what you believe, 'philosophy' is not bullshit.

Grow up.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:16 am Besides this who says P1; "Contradictions do not exist"?

1. Aristotle and all of his followers.
2. Mathematicians
3. Analytic philosophers

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:16 am As for computer programming computers are just like children's toys. You can get them to calculate whatever you want them to.

Computers obey the laws of physics. If you can program them to calculate a contradiction; then contradictions are consistent with physics.

This supports the argument that non-contradiction is a value, not a fact. Non-contradiction is an ought, not an is

The laws of physics are an extension of the dualistic nature of the universe. To use computers to justify contradictions as true is just creating another tautology.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:41 am The laws of physics are an extension of the dualistic nature of the universe. To use computers to justify contradictions as true is just creating another tautology.

No. Quantum Physics/computation are an extension of the non-dualistic nature of human knowledge.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/landmark ... -20200304/

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:16 am What does the word 'philosophy' mean to you?

Any sub-culture of humanity which holds (P ∧ ¬P) ⇔ False as normative/prescriptive rather than descriptive.

Well that is the very reason WHY you see and say the things you do, which, to some, is, colloquially known as, just 'bullshit', itself.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:16 am If the word 'philosophy' does not literally mean "bullshit" to you, then, contrary to what you believe, 'philosophy' is not bullshit.

Grow up.

You are 'trying' your hardest to prove something in the most accurate of ways.

I suggest if you want to see the actual Truth of things, then you start by speaking the actual Truth first.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:16 am Besides this who says P1; "Contradictions do not exist"?

Aristotle and all of his followers.

Do they really?

Do you have actual proof of this? If you want to claim some thing, then best you have some thing to back up and support your claims.

Also, if one person and/or some others say some thing, then this does not make it true, right, nor correct.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:16 am As for computer programming computers are just like children's toys. You can get them to calculate whatever you want them to.

Computers obey the laws of physics.

Is there absolutely any thing in the Universe that does not, literally, obey the laws of physics? If yes, then what is it/are they?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:30 am If you can program them to calculate a contradiction; then contradictions are consistent with physics.

Lol. Getting a toy to give you the result you want from a calculation that you, yourself, made up, and then programmed into a toy to follow exactly what you wanted it to do, is obviously a bit different from what you are trying to deflect to and get to here.

Programming a toy to calculate a contradiction is child's play. This, however, does not prove what you wish and believe is true.

Contradictions have nothing to do with physical things. Contradictions exist in thought, and then in speech or written words only. Contradictions, obviously, are not some physical thing, which could be physically consistent with physics.

Unless of course you can show otherwise.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:30 am All the more reason to claim that non-contradiction is a value, not a fact. Non-contradiction is an ought, not an is.

You can claim whatever you like. But this will never take away from what the facts ARE, and IS.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:51 am I suggest if you want to see the actual Truth of things, then you start by speaking the actual Truth first.

The Truth is that there is no Truth.

Now fuck off.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:44 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:41 am The laws of physics are an extension of the dualistic nature of the universe. To use computers to justify contradictions as true is just creating another tautology.

No. Quantum Physics/computation are an extension of the non-dualistic nature of human knowledge.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/landmark ... -20200304/

Yet relativity exists. To prove non contradiction wrong, all one has to do is apply recursion and self referentiality to it. A computer isn't needed for proof. It works as a proof, but it is not needed.

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) v ((P=P)=/=(-P=-P))

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28741

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:53 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:51 am I suggest if you want to see the actual Truth of things, then you start by speaking the actual Truth first.

The Truth is that there is no Truth.

Now fuck off.

That is a paradox, as it is a truth statement.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:53 am That is a paradox, as it is a truth statement.

It's a statement.

If you think it it's a "truth-statement" it's you who is assigning it a truth-value - not me.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:53 am Yet relativity exists. To prove non contradiction wrong, all one has to do is apply recursion and self referentiality to it. A computer isn't needed for proof. It works as a proof, but it is not needed.

It helps. Computers are objective. Humans aren't.

Or some such bullshit distinction that analytic philosophers draw.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:56 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:53 am That is a paradox, as it is a truth statement.

It's a statement.

If you think it it's a "truth-statement" it's you who is assigning it a truth-value - not me.

False, because if if has no truth value it is a statement with no merit.