Jose

That is not the way the paradox is set. If two objects are quantum entangled and then the move to opposite sides of the universe, knowing the state of one will mean that we know instantly the value of an other. This mean that quantum mechanics says that information travels faster than light, and relativity says that traveling faster than light is not possible.

Good that I said that was an experiment, meaning something on the real world not a thought experiment. And my point was gravity if falsifiability therefore a sound scientific concept.This is completely independent of my point about contradictions. Is information travels faster and slower than light a contradiction? Because that is the whole point of the "spoke action at a distance" paradox

I'm really worry or your reading comprehension skills. I did not try to prove anything in my last post and I ask you multiple times if for you the premise "All contradictions are false" is falsifiable. And for your silence L guess is no. Which plant it very firmly on the pseudoscience arena. If you are not able to answer that simple question your grasp of realty is not based in logic. Have fun with your crystals and please please, please do not eat them, They really hurt on their way out.

Well, if tear that your logic leads to some premises that cannot be falsified. I fear this is the case for the premise "All contradictions are false" you do not have a way to prove wrong ... I'm not claiming that if the such prove is not possible you will have what will happen with pseudoscience. The fact that you will not answer my question makes me thing that this is the case. I said that my prove was a contradiction, but I was mirroring your speech. I just find an instance where the instance "All contradictions all false" is not true ... so it is not a contradiction. The way it works is that the statement "All contradictions are X" implies that all contradictions are on a bucket called X, so if a contradiction is find outside X,which is what I did, You seam that you are set in treating the statement different cause if is about contradiction. If that where true the statement "All proves are wrong" can not be prove wrong since it will rely on a prove that by what we want to prove false are wrong. I ask you one more time, what should have to happened for the statement "All contradictions are impossible" to be false. I'm not asking for you to prove it wrong, that is why I have the example of gravity if something float then gravity can de wrong, but objects do not float.

Let me reword what you are saying and correct me if I'm not understanding you correctly: "What if I say SURE I accept your example that ~A is true AND I claim A is STILL true. Can you "prove" me wrong?" That is the reason I keep asking you what is the conditions that will satisfy you that "all contradictions are impossible" is false but you do not answer. What I fear is that the logical system that you are using is no falsifiable, which made it a pseudoscience.

That is the way traditional logic works ... let me explain it to you. From your post 1=~2 if both are true you end up with true=false, we will have the same problem if both are false I let you to a Strict Logic decide what to do with it. This is true no matter the subject of 1 or 2. It can be about contradiction or color of cars, or anything else. You are set that this is not the case because (1) and (2) are about contradiction. I ask you for the third time, if that is the case how can you prove that (1) is not true.

Yes they can be true but then you have to use some not traditional logic, like Catuskoti. What answer are you looking for? You seem to be very invested on me asking about 1 and 2. I just prove that the premise "All contradictions are impossible" is false by finding an example of a contradiction. My method is valid, if no how can you prove that "All contradictions are impossible" is false ... having a premise that cannot being prove wrong (by prove is having an experiment that can have a result that if so the premise is false, for example an experiment for gravity is that if I left something without forces interacting with it, it will float. This will never happen but it is a scientific fact because you can do the experiment) relying in infallible premise is a hallmark of pseudoscience ... in other words closer to healing crystals than to logic.

I call it with this name because is the well known name. When it was first proposed was a paradox, it was state by Einstein to say that quantum physics was wrong. Good bye, and good luck on your logical bubble. BTW never look if inductive reasoning is resistant to contradictions or not. Nor try to look at first degree entailment logic.

Yes, I think that they are not possible, but you have to accept that reality is not an absolute. If you accept that contradictions are possible you have to accept that the context (the worldview) where preposition A and preposition B are different.

Yes do. Life is full of uncertainty for you to handle ... As an example the Guidelines do not tell us where shall we find the grammar, spelling, punctuation and style ... shall we use USA or Britain or something else.

If you said that the spooky action as a distance what is spooky with distance, it said that you are not acquainted with the most famous paradox on physics right now. I'm quoting what I said ... I'm curious how do you interpret what I said as meaning that it wasn't. Also can you point on an instance where I put words in your mouth? I agree that it is very annoying and I try to stop.

quantum Here is your link https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427174/einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-paradox-older-than-thought/ The link you provide talks about quantum hidden variables. This and your comment that you having no idea what "spooky action at distant" advertise your knowledge of physics. Here is a link for hidden variables http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-2/Do-hidden-variables-exist-for-quantum-systems.html Based on this definition of contradiction what I point is a contradiction https://www.dictionary.com/browse/contradiction More of physicists can think that FTL is possible but if they cannot provide a theory of how it is done it is just an idea, not a part of the physical knowledge.

I understand it that under Objectivism you cannot have contradiction. And you said I do not understand what you mean so I'm just asking what you mean. Because what you said is that contradictions are possible and impossible.

My spelling is irrelevant to the fact that the physicist agree that it is a contradiction that we need to deal with in real life and that contradicts one of the principles of Objectivism, but you are using my spelling as an excuse to do not engage on the real issue. BTW I'm still waiting for answers from StrictlyLogical and dream_weaver

Einsten did not agree. I am I way worst at phisycs than he. And I can safely assume that you either claim to know more phisycs than he.