Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
John P. McCaskey

How Best to Attack Ayn Rand’s System

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

"spooky action at a distance."

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.

Edited by Jose
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jose said:

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.

Whether or not you wish to call reality an absolute or non-absolute, the ULTIMATE context of A is the same as the ULTIMATE context of B, which is reality.

You said that you proved Rand was wrong, and you did so by making the claim that "contradictions are possible" thereby "refuting" the principle that contradictions are impossible.  This is exactly how you made your argument in the OP.

According to the logic of your so called proof, you cannot disprove the claim that A and B are BOTH true, which is why you are evading and avoiding directly addressing it.

Since you imagine a universe with multiple "contexts" let's TRY AGAIN:

 

1.  Rand is correct that in reality "contradictions are impossible"

AND

2.  Rand is incorrect that in reality "contradictions are impossible"

 

Do you agree that the proposition that 1 and 2 are BOTH true is a possible state of the universe?  YES or NO? and WHY?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Whether or not you wish to call reality an absolute or non-absolute, the ULTIMATE context of A is the same as the ULTIMATE context of B, which is reality.

You said that you proved Rand was wrong, and you did so by making the claim that "contradictions are possible" thereby "refuting" the principle that contradictions are impossible.  This is exactly how you made your argument in the OP.

According to the logic of your so called proof, you cannot disprove the claim that A and B are BOTH true, which is why you are evading and avoiding directly addressing it.

Since you imagine a universe with multiple "contexts" let's TRY AGAIN:

 

1.  Rand is correct that in reality "contradictions are impossible"

AND

2.  Rand is incorrect that in reality "contradictions are impossible"

 

Do you agree that the proposition that 1 and 2 are BOTH true is a possible state of the universe?  YES or NO? and WHY?

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jose said:

I just prove that the premise "All contradictions are impossible" is false by finding an example of a contradiction.

How does "finding an example of a contradiction" constitute PROOF that "all contradictions are impossible" is FALSE? 

 

What if I say, SURE, I accept that you've found an example of a contradiction AND I claim "all contradictions are impossible" is STILL true.

Can you "prove" me wrong?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

How does "finding an example of a contradiction" constitute PROOF that "all contradictions are impossible" is FALSE? 

 

What if I say, SURE, I accept that you've found an example of a contradiction AND I claim "all contradictions are impossible" is STILL true.

Can you "prove" me wrong?

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jose said:

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.

 

7 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

What if I say, SURE, I accept that you've found an example of a contradiction AND I claim "all contradictions are impossible" is STILL true.

 Can you "prove" me wrong?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

What if I say, SURE, I accept that you've found an example of a contradiction AND I claim "all contradictions are impossible" is STILL true.

 Can you "prove" me wrong?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jose said:

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.

You claim to have a superior logical system to mine or at least you “fear” my logic is wrong... well here is your opportunity, teach me, teach us all. Please do, I’m asking you.

You say:

17 hours ago, Jose said:

I just prove that the premise "All contradictions are impossible" is false by finding an example of a contradiction

For the first lesson, explain how “finding an example of a contradiction” proves the premise “all contradictions are impossible” is false. Don’t worry about my inferior logic; please show us using your logic and keep it simple and clear so we can all follow and understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

You claim to have a superior logical system to mine or at least you “fear” my logic is wrong... well here is your opportunity, teach me, teach us all. Please do, I’m asking you.

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jose said:

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.

 

You

have

proven

nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When there is a contradiction, there is a problem with "my thoughts".
Why?
Because contradictions exist, but as concepts, as thoughts, as imagination.
They do not exist outside of consciousness.
They are artifacts of a mind only (sort of a mental entity). 

So when someone says they don't exist, it is in that context.

When something floats, it implies there is no gravity. It could. Or it could mean your thoughts are incorrect.
You have to ask what holds the water down?
Why doesn't the object float above the water?
If there was no gravity, the water should float upward and the object should float above that too at some point.

The implication is that "something holds it all down".

If contradictions exist, the the water is the object which is the air which is the floor which is the sky which is you and me and gravity.

If a contradictions exist, if they are out there, outside of the mind the the world that you see is and isn't,
Anything is heavy and is not heavy, 
Nothing can be distinguished, everything is the same and different.
There is no point in asking "why" anymore, the answer would be meaningless.

In any face to face discussion, to claim that contradictions exist outside of the mind, ends up meaning "end of conversation".
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

When something floats, it implies there is no gravity. It could. Or it could mean your thoughts are incorrect.

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.

 

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Anything is heavy and is not heavy, 

Is information travels faster and slower than light a contradiction? Because that is the whole point of the "spoke action at a distance" paradox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2019 at 11:16 AM, Jose said:

Is information travels faster and slower than light a contradiction?

Depending on what is meant.

To say that something is slower, and then say it is faster, is to say it is slower and not slower.
Which is to say nothing, i.e. meaningless, unknowable, indeterminable.

But to say in this way it is faster but in this other way it is slower, is not a contradiction.
You have to include the context, the time, the perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

 

To say that something is slower, and then say it is faster, is to say it is slower and not slower.
Which is to say nothing, i.e. meaningless, unknowable, indeterminable.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...