Timeline for Why should I not believe there are true contradictions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8 at 1:22 | comment | added | Kevin | @confusedcius: That's not a definition. That's a pair of axioms. A definition should have the form ∀x(Wulture(x) ⟷ [something else]). You cannot recast those axioms into that form. | |
| May 7 at 18:23 | comment | added | JMac | @Kaia That's not a definition though. Like how would you complete the sentence "a wulture is..."? | |
| May 7 at 17:54 | comment | added | Kaia | @JMac "Every vulture is a wulture. All wultures are not white. Delia is a white vulture." | |
| May 7 at 11:57 | comment | added | JMac | @Kaia I'm curious how one could even define the word "wulture" using the features described though. What would that definition actually be in English? Maybe I'm just uncreative, but I dont see any way to actually define the term "wulture" based on the criteria it is supposed to meet. Like "a wulture is any vulture, a wulture is not white" but that doesnt even read like a definition to me. | |
| May 7 at 8:03 | comment | added | edelex | By saying this you are just presupposing the impossibility of contradiction. Kaia is right I think. The point of the idea of the wulture is to introduce a contradictory concept and to challenge people to prove that it is problematic without being circular. | |
| May 6 at 22:47 | comment | added | Kaia | This should not be upvoted. The set is defined to be contradictory (intentionally so), not the intersection of the two sets. | |
| May 6 at 20:14 | comment | added | confusedcius | You misinterpreted, "Is a wulture" ≠ "is a vulture" AND (NOT "is white"). The definition is that ∀x(Vulture(x) → Wulture(x)) ("Wulture" applies to all vultures) and ∀x(Wulture(x) → ¬White(x)) ("Wulture" excludes all things that are white). There is a contradiction (but there are no wultures). | |
| May 6 at 15:19 | comment | added | automaton | This does not answer the question. OP asked "Can somebody please give me a justification of the law of non-contradiction which doesn't just rely on intuition?" What prompted the question is immaterial. "You're under the misapprehension that they're some kind of authority you have to believe" is also an assertion I don't see a basis for | |
| May 6 at 14:34 | comment | added | JimmyJames | There is so much of this kind of thing on the internet now. I'm sometimes unsure about whether the people pushing it realize they are talking nonsense or are just people who lack the ability to reason logically. | |
| May 6 at 13:51 | comment | added | aschepler | I thought similarly, but that the definition of "wulture" is just too vaguely worded, and doesn't correspond to a single precise logical formula, set union or intersection, etc. This leads to the confusions. | |
| May 6 at 12:26 | history | answered | Graham | CC BY-SA 4.0 |