Timeline for Why should I not believe there are true contradictions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8 at 17:56 | comment | added | Nemanja | @leepappas Generalizing is exactly where your answer falls short. There are plentiful of examples (even yours) where you would have a third row in your table where both 'A' and 'not A' can have value 1. You exclude that row because of the principle of explosion. However, principle of explosion itself is not general, as there are logic systems where it does not happen. So you are not justified to exclude the third row and conclude a general rule. | |
| May 8 at 16:22 | comment | added | Corbin | LEM is not equivalent to LNC. LNC holds in all higher-order intuitionistic logics (it's a version of modus ponens!) but LEM does not. | |
| May 8 at 1:01 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 23 characters in body
|
| May 8 at 0:58 | comment | added | lee pappas | @kaia, the law of the excluded middle is semantically equivalent to the law of non Contradiction. They express the same proposition in different words. | |
| May 8 at 0:53 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 26 characters in body
|
| May 8 at 0:39 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| May 8 at 0:01 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| May 7 at 23:01 | comment | added | lee pappas | @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. | |
| May 7 at 22:24 | comment | added | lee pappas | @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. | |
| May 7 at 22:17 | comment | added | lee pappas | @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). | |
| May 7 at 18:05 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| May 9 at 10:50 | |||||
| May 7 at 17:57 | comment | added | Kaia | This isn't the question. The question is WHY ought we accept the law of excluded middle & non-contradiction. | |
| May 7 at 7:52 | comment | added | Nemanja | 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. | |
| May 6 at 20:14 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| May 6 at 20:04 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| S May 6 at 20:00 | history | suggested | Schmuddi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
converted to proper table; copy-editing
|
| May 6 at 8:15 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 6 at 20:00 | |||||
| May 6 at 2:49 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| May 5 at 20:03 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 42 characters in body
|
| May 5 at 19:58 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 42 characters in body
|
| May 5 at 19:44 | history | answered | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |