Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

8
  • 1
    This answer is trying to conclude a general rule using only a single example. Furthermore, the example itself is not particularly convincing as the eye is not only in closed or open state, it has a range of intermidiary states, making it susceptible to the Sorites paradox.
    – Nemanja
    Commented May 7 at 7:52
  • 1
    This isn't the question. The question is WHY ought we accept the law of excluded middle & non-contradiction.
    – Kaia
    Commented May 7 at 17:57
  • @Nemanja, I used a simple example of a proposition whose truth value varies in time to ground the readers attention. It's rather trivial to generalize on your own, that my presentation of temporal logic holds when the symbol A represents an arbitrary proposition (temporal or atemporal).
    – lee pappas
    Commented May 7 at 22:17
  • @kaia, I did answer that question. I showed that the lLNC is always true, true at every moment in time, true in all possible worlds. That's the reason WHY the OP should accept it. In my opinion, I gave the best answer of the lot. I knew the same fact that the guy with 15 score knew, but considered the issue of simultaneity the better response. He didn't prove all propositions are true if at least one contradiction denotes a true proposition. I can prove it.
    – lee pappas
    Commented May 7 at 22:24
  • 1
    @kaia, HIS QUESTION WAS... can somebody please give me a justification of the law of non-contradiction which doesn't just rely on intuition? That is exactly what I did.
    – lee pappas
    Commented May 7 at 23:01