tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post5379507007408248391..comments2023-02-15T03:54:17.107-08:00Comments on For the Legacy of Lewis: Responding to Ron Garret’s Challenges to My Basic AxiomsJimmy Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15731766969720951492noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-77768843128897906052022-04-02T04:56:28.437-07:002022-04-02T04:56:28.437-07:00Best casinos in the world to play blackjack, slots...Best casinos in the world to play blackjack, slots and video<br />hari-hari-hari-hotel-casino-online-casinos-in-us · <a href="https://www.mapyro.com/" rel="nofollow">출장안마</a> blackjack <a href="https://www.herzamanindir.com/" rel="nofollow">바카라</a> (blackjack) <a href="https://casinosites.one/" rel="nofollow">casinosites.one</a> · roulette (no Blackjack Video <a href="https://www.titanium-arts.com/" rel="nofollow">titanium metal trim</a> Poker · Video Poker · <a href="https://casinowed.com/" rel="nofollow">1등 사이트</a> Video Poker · Video pokermadhuobahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040879359040552740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-63050969625526901412019-04-05T16:00:48.904-07:002019-04-05T16:00:48.904-07:00>I feel like you probably haven't studied b...>I feel like you probably haven't studied basic logic<br /><br />I have, but it has been a while, and my study was mostly independent. Apparently mechanical engineers and accountants don't need to know logic...<br /><br />I think I see you point here. I think if you had said "negation" instead of "opposite" in the beginning, it might have jogged my memory. <br /><br />Memory jogged, and you are right. The proper negation of "The police are aware that you frequently beat your wife," is:<br /><br />"The police are not aware that you frequently beat your wife, *or* you do not frequently beat your wife." And such a statement can be assigned a value of true. Well and good.<br /><br />Now, taking this back to your original statement, "This statement is false."<br /><br />Remember, that since "this statement" refers to the statement "this statement is false", then really this also amounts to two claims:<br /><br />P="This statement is false"<br />Q="This statement is true" (reduced from "'This statement is false' is false")<br />P and Q<br /><br />Now, I still don't know why you don't see this as a clear violation of non-contradiction. P and Q cannot both be true, because they are contradictory. However, when I do as you do, I come up with the negation "(not P) or (not Q)", or...<br /><br />"This statement is true or false."<br /><br />This amounts to a restatement of the law of excluded middle. Which returns us to the question at hand. Now, since I have already accepted the law of excluded middle, I am able to coherently say that yes, it is true that "this statement is true or false." And at the very least this should show how your statement fails as a counterexample to the law of excluded middle. I still have no affirmative reason to believe that the law of excluded middle might be false. We are back at square 1: I accept the law of excluded middle as an axiom and without any indication that it might be false; while you reject the law of excluded middle because...?<br /><br />>No. "False", in logic, is not the same as "nonsensical". Those are different categories of things.<br /><br />That was not my claim. I said false, because nonsense. If the law of excluded middle is true, then nonsense is within the category of falseness. Not the same thing, just like a square and a rectangle are not the same thing. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Even so, all nonsense is false, but not all falsehoods are nonsense.<br />Jimmy Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15731766969720951492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-20315231612763478412019-04-05T14:27:10.093-07:002019-04-05T14:27:10.093-07:00P.S. If you actually want to get into theories of ...P.S. If you actually want to get into theories of knowledge and belief (as well as other minds), you might want to start studying some epistemology ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ ). Philosophers have been exploring this subject for thousands of years. Saying "You can't be "aware" of a false fact." seems a bit overconfident to me. I suspect you're not familiar with the complexities of this claim you just made.Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-12675533754034845662019-04-05T14:22:46.844-07:002019-04-05T14:22:46.844-07:00I feel like you probably haven't studied basic...I feel like you probably haven't studied basic logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra). So we can look at your supposed example: "The police are aware that you frequently beat your wife."<br /><br />To formalize what you mean by "aware", this is actually two claims:<br />P = "you frequently beat your wife"<br />Q = "The police believe P"<br /><br />Your original statement is "P and Q". You do beat your wife frequently, and also the police know this. You say the original statement is false.<br /><br />This means the negation of the original statement is true. That is: "not(P and Q)".<br /><br />Following boolean logic, this converts to "(not P) or (not Q)". If you don't know logic, it's important to note that in ordinary English, "or" sometimes means "exclusive or", i.e. either one or the other but not both. But in logic, "or" means the generic "or": either one, or the other, or possibly both.<br /><br />So since the original statement is false, the negation of the original statement is true. Namely, EITHER "you don't beat your wife", OR "you do beat your wife but the police don't know it", OR possibly "you don't beat your wife and also the police don't know that either".<br /><br />That is what your original example "means", and that is why the original statement being false means that its negation must be true. You just weren't very good at coming up with the negation, which I suspect is because you haven't actually studied logic.<br /><br />"the statement is false because the claim is nonsensical"<br /><br />No. "False", in logic, is not the same as "nonsensical". Those are different categories of things.Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-60051621521945922382019-04-05T14:16:24.387-07:002019-04-05T14:16:24.387-07:00"You can't be "aware" of a fals..."You can't be "aware" of a false fact."<br /><br />And now you're getting into theories of "belief" and "knowledge", which is a very complex area of philosophy. Let me just say that this new claim of yours is far from self-evident.<br /><br />"The supposed truth of the claim is entailed by the use of the word "aware"."<br /><br />Sorry, no, that is not what the word "aware" actually means. Requiring "truth" of the underlying belief is quite a heavy requirement, and much more than the common usage of the word. You've chosen a non-standard definition.<br /><br />But that's fine. Let's do it your way. (continued...)Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-34928563292567534692019-04-05T12:26:15.842-07:002019-04-05T12:26:15.842-07:00It's not a connotation, though. It's a cl...It's not a connotation, though. It's a claim. You can't be "aware" of a false fact. The statement "I am aware that Don is the number three", is false, regardless of my perception or belief. The supposed truth of the claim is entailed by the use of the word "aware". <br /><br />It may be true that "I perceive that Don is the number three," or that "I believe that Don is the number three." But to say that "I am aware that Don is the number three" entails a claim that Don is, in fact, the number three. Since Don is not, in fact, the number three, then it is false to say that I was "aware" of such a fact.<br /><br />But honestly, that's enough nonsense for me today. I do appreciate you bringing this riddle to my attention. I enjoyed thinking about it. However, I remain satisfied with my solution: the statement "This statement is false" is nonsensical, because it violates the law of non-contradiction, and is therefore false. It is not false simply because it claims to be false; rather, the statement is false because the claim is nonsensical.Jimmy Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15731766969720951492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-430381656962321552019-04-05T11:10:29.934-07:002019-04-05T11:10:29.934-07:00"Stay out of politics, my friend."
Did ..."Stay out of politics, my friend."<br /><br />Did I not already mention "connotation" in my reply? I already addressed this point. I obviously know what common inferences people will naturally derive from those statements. That's different than a question of logical truth.<br /><br />"The police are are aware that you do not frequently beat your wife"<br /><br />That is not the opposite of the original sentence either.<br /><br />"These are both valid opposites to the original claim."<br /><br />No, they aren't.Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-7169591171357879422019-04-05T10:57:24.357-07:002019-04-05T10:57:24.357-07:00>"The police are not aware that you freque...>"The police are not aware that you frequently beat your wife."<br /><br />>That statement would be true<br /><br />Stay out of politics, my friend.<br /><br />The statement: "The police are not aware that you frequently beat your wife" contains the claim that "you frequently beat your wife". If that claim is not true, then the whole statement is false.<br /><br />Regardless, generating the opposite "The police are are aware that you do not frequently beat your wife" is not necessarily true either. It may be the case that the police are not aware of any of the circumstances concerning your domestic situation.<br /><br />This all just goes to show that the logical law that you made up is clearly false. These are both valid opposites to the original claim. And the falseness of the original claim does not in any way necessitate the truth of these opposites.Jimmy Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15731766969720951492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-20515593831148853622019-04-05T10:32:32.566-07:002019-04-05T10:32:32.566-07:00"The police are not aware that you frequently..."The police are not aware that you frequently beat your wife."<br /><br />That statement would be true (just as expected).<br /><br />You clearly have in mind an additional connotation to the statement, and the additional connotation is not true. In that case, your rewording is simply NOT the "opposite" of the original statement. If you care about the connotation, then you failed to generate the correct opposite.Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-40042886429616159152019-04-05T10:21:04.212-07:002019-04-05T10:21:04.212-07:00>Because if a statement is false, then logic re...>Because if a statement is false, then logic requires that its opposite be true.<br /><br />Where do you get this law of logic?<br /><br />Take this statement: "The police are aware that you frequently beat your wife." Hopefully this statement is false. <br /><br />By your own invented law of logic, the opposite of that statement must be true, so "The police are not aware that you frequently beat your wife."<br /><br />By this counterexample, we see that the opposite of a false statement is not always true. Your proposed law of logic fails.Jimmy Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15731766969720951492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-37082487555141355462019-04-05T09:51:15.888-07:002019-04-05T09:51:15.888-07:00>It doesn't matter what the example itself ...>It doesn't matter what the example itself "claims".<br /><br />Sure it does. How can you assign a truth value to the statement without analyzing the claims of the statement?<br /><br />>Your arguments seem to keep relying on your assumption of your "law of the excluded middle".<br /><br />Not even a little bit. I only need the law of non-contradiction to be true, in order to show that the statement is nonsensical.<br /><br />>Because if you attempt to label it "true", you run into a contradiction. And if you attempt to label it "false", you also run into a contradiction. So neither of those labels can be correct.<br /><br />All that means is that the statement is self-contradictory. That should tell you, proof positive, that this statement is nonsense.<br /><br />The falseness of the statement does not arise from the claims of the statements themselves. The statement claims to be both true and false - not neither. The falseness comes from the fact that it is nonsense. And the opposite of nonsense is still nonsense. Nonsense cannot have an opposite because there is nothing for it to be opposed to. <br /><br />Jimmy Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15731766969720951492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-55315366978540738002019-04-05T09:30:32.873-07:002019-04-05T09:30:32.873-07:00Perhaps we've reached the end of this discussi...Perhaps we've reached the end of this discussion. Your arguments seem to keep relying on your assumption of your "law of the excluded middle". I'm telling you that your law is not actually a law of logic. And I've given you a counterexample. But you keep dismissing my counterexample ... mostly based on this very same law that we're arguing about in the first place!<br /><br />"Your example claims to be both true and false."<br /><br />It doesn't matter what the example itself "claims". It's just a statement. Like "The sky is blue" or "Pi has a value of 4". It's a later process, to try to look at the statement an assign a truth value of "true" or "false" to each statement.<br /><br />Your "law of the excluded middle" axiom claims that EVERY statement can be assigned either "true" or "false". I've given you a statement that is a counterexample. If you assign my example "true", you run into problems; if you assign it "false", you also run into problems. Neither assignment of truth value is appropriate for my statement.<br /><br />What the statement itself "claims" isn't especially important.<br /><br />"It literally claims to be false. But the way it is formulated, it is also claiming to be true. Those claims are clearly contradictory."<br /><br />Exactly. Which is why neither "true" nor "false" is an appropriate label for my example. Which is why it is a counterexample to your claimed "law of the excluded middle".<br /><br />"So where do you get this idea that it is neither true nor false?"<br /><br />Because if you attempt to label it "true", you run into a contradiction. And if you attempt to label it "false", you also run into a contradiction. So neither of those labels can be correct.<br /><br />"Type in the word "false". Look at definition #3: "not true"."<br /><br />Dictionaries can only relate the common usage of terms among the public. They can't resolve complex questions of mathematical logic.<br /><br />"If the statement is not true, then it's false."<br /><br />No, "false" doesn't work either. Because if a statement is false, then logic requires that its opposite be true. It is certainly the case that my example is not true. But it is also not false.Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-92020556046904716552019-04-05T07:58:59.360-07:002019-04-05T07:58:59.360-07:00Here's another way to demonstrate that what yo...Here's another way to demonstrate that what you are saying is nonsense. Go to www.miriam-webster.com. Type in the word "false". Look at definition #3: "not true".<br /><br />So false literally just means "not true". So when you say that any statement is "neither true nor false", you make are making 2 claims: #1 the statement is not true. #2 the statement is not false. But statement #1 literally means that the statement is false: because the definition of false is "not true". If the statement is not true, then it's false. So when you say that a statement is "neither true nor false", you are actually saying that the statement is "both false and not false". <br /><br />It is contradictory. It is nonsense. It is incoherent, devoid of meaning or any intelligible idea.Jimmy Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15731766969720951492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-53403811732293863472019-04-05T07:17:31.170-07:002019-04-05T07:17:31.170-07:00>No. You've left out the alternative that m...>No. You've left out the alternative that my example is neither true nor false.<br /><br />But your example fails this claim. Your example claims to be both true and false. It is therefore contradictory. It is therefore nonsense. It is therefore false.<br /><br />I'm not sure how else to say that. It literally claims to be false. But the way it is formulated, it is also claiming to be true. Those claims are clearly contradictory.<br /><br />So how do you suppose that this claim is "neither true nor false"? Even you see that it claims to be false. Do you see how it also claims to be true? So where do you get this idea that it is neither true nor false? It seems like you are just making an assertion without any reasoning.Jimmy Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15731766969720951492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-75842369377895700562019-04-04T21:34:58.014-07:002019-04-04T21:34:58.014-07:00"If a statement violates the laws of logic, i..."If a statement violates the laws of logic, it is nonsense."<br /><br />I thought we had a disagreement on just what the "laws of logic" actually are. You claimed that the "law of the excluded middle" is a "law of logic". I dispute that, and I provided a counterexample (a statement which is neither true, nor false).<br /><br />You don't get to claim that my statement is "nonsense" BECAUSE it violates the "laws of logic". I dispute that it violates any laws of logic. I dispute that your "law of the excluded middle" is actually a "law of logic".<br /><br />I think you're arguing in circles.<br /><br />""This statement is false" also violates the law of non-contradiction. ... And if "'This statement is false' is false", then that would mean "This statement is true.""<br /><br />No. You've left out the alternative that my example is neither true nor false. If you throw out your "law of the excluded middle", then you have no violation of "non-contradiction".<br /><br />"Thus, it is false, because nonsense is always false."<br /><br />No, the other alternative is that "true" and "false" don't apply to all statements. Your "law of the excluded middle" is NOT actually an axiom of logic.<br /><br />"This is not a case of something transcending the capacity of human intelligence, or anything like that. There is no mystery of the universe here."<br /><br />Yes, I agree. I was never claiming any great mystery. I was only providing a counterexample to one of your proposed "laws of logic". I don't think you got the "laws of logic" right, because one of your axioms is actually false.Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-46275866277669836742019-04-04T21:16:25.307-07:002019-04-04T21:16:25.307-07:00>What does it mean for a statement to be "...>What does it mean for a statement to be "nonsense"?<br /><br />If a statement violates the laws of logic, it is nonsense. One might say that if you really could produce a statement that was neither true nor false, then it would be in violation of the law of excluded middle, and therefore it would be nonsense.<br /><br />If that feels like begging the question, then consider this. "This statement is false" also violates the law of non-contradiction.<br /><br />"This statement" refers to the statement "This statement is false." Thus, "This statement is false" is equivalent to the statement "'This statement is false' is false". And if "'This statement is false' is false", then that would mean "This statement is true." Thus, "This statement is false" is equivalent to the statement "This statement is both true and false". This is a self-contradiction. It is nonsense. Thus, it is false, because nonsense is always false.<br /><br />>So if I look at claim X: "Statement Y is false", and you tell me "claim X is false", that doesn't make statement Y true? Is statement Y true, or false? I thought your "law of the excluded middle" means that statement Y must be one of the two. Which is it?<br /><br />This is not the same as saying "This statement is false." In the example you provided:<br /><br />Claim X = "Statement Y is false"<br />Claim X = False<br />Thus<br />"Statement Y is false" is false. <br />So Statement Y is true. <br />No problem exists here. No violation of the law of excluded middle.<br /><br />But "This statement is false" is actually like this:<br /><br />Claim X = "Claim X is False"<br />Claim X is flase<br />Thus<br />"Claim X is false" is false<br />So Claim X is true.<br />So Claim X is both false and true.<br />This is contradictory, and therefore nonsense, and therefore false.<br /><br />>My example, "this sentence is false", does have self-reference; but only a single level, not an infinite level.<br /><br />I don't understand this. How are you limiting it to a single level? Even at one level, you get "'This statement is false' is false." But this statement also has "this statement" in it, which is defined as "This statement is false". How do you suppose the chain is broken? Why, after the first level of substitution, does "this statement" stop meaning "this statement is false"?<br /><br />People certainly can speak nonsense. But thanks to the laws of logic, at least we can spot them when they do.<br /><br />By the way, the Miriam Webster definition of nonsense is "words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas". So even the statement "This statement is true" is nonsense, since its self reference means that it is devoid of any meaning; it conveys no intelligible ideas. Think of the conversation that would ensue:<br /><br />"Hey Don, this statement is true."<br /><br />"Wait, what statement are you referring to?"<br /><br />"The statement, 'This statement is true'."<br /><br />"So you're telling me that 'This statement is true', is true?"<br /><br />"Yeah."<br /><br />"You haven't told me anything."<br /><br />"I told you that 'This statement is true'."<br /><br />"Yes, but the statement refers to itself, so no actual statement is being made. No facts about the world, no relationships between ideas or anything. There is no substance. Nothing at all that has any meaning in and of itself. Just a self referential definition that goes round and round in a circle."<br /><br />Non = no<br /><br />Sense = meaning<br /><br />No meaning. No Sense. Nonsense. That's all this is. <br /><br />People often mistake the ineffability of nonsense for another kind of ineffability. I wonder if that is what you are doing. This is not a case of something transcending the capacity of human intelligence, or anything like that. There is no mystery of the universe here. It's just nonsense. Nothing more.Jimmy Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15731766969720951492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-53353053278723586372019-04-04T16:37:16.598-07:002019-04-04T16:37:16.598-07:00"It seems to me that the statement "This..."It seems to me that the statement "This statement is false" is nonsensical, and therefore false. That doesn't make the statement true"<br /><br />So if I look at claim X: "Statement Y is false", and you tell me "claim X is false", that doesn't make statement Y true? Is statement Y true, or false? I thought your "law of the excluded middle" means that statement Y must be one of the two. Which is it?<br /><br />"because the the statement itself is still nonsense. I say it is nonsense because the quality of "falseness" is being applied to a statement that doesn't actually exist. In order to be false, the statement must exist."<br /><br />What does it mean for a statement to be "nonsense"? Each of the individual words has a clear, unambiguous and well-understood definition. The grammar is very simple. On what basis do you label the statement "nonsense"?<br /><br />Of course I know that it is challenging to assign "true" or "false" to the statement, and on that basis it "doesn't make sense", aka "nonsense". But isn't that the whole point we're debating? We're asking WHETHER OR NOT it is possible for there to be statements that are neither true nor false. When I give you such a candidate statement, you can't use the RESULT that it is challenging to assign true/false, as the REASON that you're going to claim it is "nonsense" or "doesn't exist".<br /><br />The whole point was that we don't agree on whether every statement can be assigned either "true" or "false". You don't get to "win" this argument by retroactively re-defining the term "statement" to only apply to things that actually can be assigned true or false. That just makes your claim an uninteresting tautology. If you want to exclude my example, you're going to have to come up with a justification OTHER than the fact that you can't reasonably assign true/false to it.<br /><br />"The statement, I say, doesn't exist because it refers to itself"<br /><br />Why does self-reference mean that a statement "doesn't exist"? What does "existence" even mean, for a statement? Surely the individual words "exist", in some sense. And the arrangement of words into a sentence "exists". What is your actual claim, that the statement "doesn't exist"? I don't know what that claim means.<br /><br />"it refers to itself, thus creating an infinite regression of reference"<br /><br />Self-reference doesn't (necessarily) imply infinite regression. For example, there is nothing particularly troubling about this (false) statement: "This sentence contains one hundred characters."<br /><br />My example, "this sentence is false", does have self-reference; but only a single level, not an infinite level. The infinite regression comes as YOU try to THINK about assigning truth values to the sentence. But the meaning of the sentence is very clear, and only has a single level of self-reference. It means much the same thing as this sentence: "This sentence is true." You don't have much problem with this new sentence, do you?<br /><br />Or maybe you do! Is the new sentence true, or false? Both assignments "work"! Perhaps the first example is "neither true nor false", while this new example is "both true and false"!Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-869253908602564792019-04-04T15:38:59.789-07:002019-04-04T15:38:59.789-07:00Hi,
Yes, I had fun spinning this one around in m...Hi, <br /><br />Yes, I had fun spinning this one around in my brain :)<br /><br />It seems to me that the statement "This statement is false" is nonsensical, and therefore false. That doesn't make the statement true, because the the statement itself is still nonsense.<br /><br />I say it is nonsense because the quality of "falseness" is being applied to a statement that doesn't actually exist. In order to be false, the statement must exist.<br /><br />The statement, I say, doesn't exist because it refers to itself, thus creating an infinite regression of reference. It is more clear if you re-order the statement like so:<br /><br />"It is false to say this statement". Then, you can substitute the referent into the original, so that you get, "It is false to say 'it is false to say this statement.'" And then it goes on an on.<br /><br />"It is false to say, 'It is false to say, "It is false to say, 'It is false to say, "It is false to say..."'"'" ad infinitum.<br /><br />Now, you can still do that without re-ordering the phrase:<br /><br />"'This statement is false' is false." <br /><br />Then...<br /><br />This statement is false is false.<br /><br />Then...<br /><br />This statement is false is false is false.<br /><br />Again, ad infinitum.<br /><br />Try it in excel. In cell A1, type in "This statement is false".<br /><br />Then, in cell A2, type in the formula <br /><br />=SUBSTITUTE(A1,"This statement","This statement is false")<br /><br />Then copy that down the line. This is what I get in cell A20:<br /><br />This statement is false is false is false is false is false is false is false is false is false is false is false is false is false is false is false is false is false is false is false is false.<br />Jimmy Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15731766969720951492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-47250800153216811172019-04-04T13:32:16.830-07:002019-04-04T13:32:16.830-07:00Jimmy, can you explain whether the statement "...Jimmy, can you explain whether the statement "This statement is false", is "true" or "false"? This example doesn't seem to have any confusion about what the individual words actually refer to, there is no temporal complexity, and no subjectivity. How does this example relate to your proposed "law of excluded middle"?Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-20704917562429795292019-04-04T11:50:07.881-07:002019-04-04T11:50:07.881-07:00>No, I'm expressing reservations about your...>No, I'm expressing reservations about your formulations of the "laws of logic". I'm totally down with logic.<br /><br />Erm, yes. My statement was poorly worded. Apologies. I did attempt to make that distinction in the opening line of the blog, "his respectful criticism concerning *my representation* of the basic axioms..."<br /><br />>I don't think that's going to work. What if you sell your lamp to me? What if you throw your lamp away and replace it with a new one? What if you sell your lamp to me, but I let you keep it for a while so that now it belongs to me but it's still illuminating your room?<br /><br />I'm not sure I see the issue here. If I sell you my lamp, it becomes your lamp. The transaction effects a real change in identity.<br /><br />Maybe I'm missing something here. Are you saying that identity is not a real thing unless that identity remains the same at all times and all places? The Law of Identity simply states that a thing is what it is; it does not imply that a thing will always be what it is now.<br /><br />>> Subjectivity does not violate the law of excluded middle<br /><br />>OK, here are some more examples:<br /><br />I'm not sure I perceive any issues with those examples. It's true that the statements you use as an example can be interpreted in ways that are true or false. But in each case, the statement is *either true or false* depending on the assumptions by which the statement is interpreted.<br /><br />It is TRUE that Darth Vader stands in the father relationship to Luke Skywalker, *within the fictional universe of Star Wars.* But it is FALSE that Darth Vader stands in the father relationship to Luke Skywalker *outside of the fictional universe of Star Wars*, because Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker only exist within that fictional universe. <br /><br />Just because the same statement can be interpreted in different ways, and that one interpretation would be true while the other is false, does not mean that a violation of the law of excluded middle has occurred.<br /><br />So again, the problem which is supposed actually relates to the use of language, and not a problem with the law of logic itself. The knowledge being communicated by a "statement" is frequently far greater than that which comes through in the words themselves. This is one of the challenges of communication: being clear about what you do mean, and complete, in order to rule out what you don't mean.<br /><br />>No, I disagree with that. In fact, we know that our minds and senses are *not* reliable under many circumstances, e.g. when we are dreaming.<br /><br />Forgive my use of overly simplistic language here. My original statement was that our minds and senses are *generally* reliable, which is sufficient for us to know things.Jimmy Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15731766969720951492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8129163066919472587.post-85428669949612861592019-04-04T11:15:55.471-07:002019-04-04T11:15:55.471-07:00> Ron expresses certain reservations regarding ...> Ron expresses certain reservations regarding the laws of logic in his response to my first post<br /><br />No, I'm expressing reservations about your formulations of the "laws of logic". I'm totally down with logic.<br /><br />> “my lamp” today is really a totally different lamp than “my lamp” yesterday<br /><br />Not "is", merely "could be".<br /><br />> ... the identification of things by their purpose. Thus, “my lamp” is the thing which I can use to control the lighting in my room.<br /><br />I don't think that's going to work. What if you sell your lamp to me? What if you throw your lamp away and replace it with a new one? What if you sell your lamp to me, but I let you keep it for a while so that now it belongs to me but it's still illuminating your room?<br /><br />> Subjectivity does not violate the law of excluded middle<br /><br />OK, here are some more examples:<br /><br />"Darth Vader is (was?) Luke Skywalker's father." (Or, along a similar vein, "Unicorns have horns.")<br /><br />"Our solar system has nine planets."<br /><br />"An electron is a particle."<br /><br />And even...<br /><br />> “We can know things.”<br /><br />Even that depends on what you mean by "know". Did Ptolemy "know" that the earth is the center of the universe? Do flat-earthers "know" that the earth is flat?<br /><br />> Subjective experience may be, according to RLR, the “most reliable information you can possibly have”, but that falls short of saying that it is actually reliable.<br /><br />Yes, exactly right.<br /><br />> If we are to have any confidence in our ability to know things, we must be willing to take that affirmative position, “Yes, our minds and senses are reliable.”<br /><br />No, I disagree with that. In fact, we know that our minds and senses are *not* reliable under many circumstances, e.g. when we are dreaming.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.com