Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jose

Regulars
  • Posts

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jose

  1. Valid in logic means that if the prepositions are true then the conclusion also is. So if it’s sensical, no sensical or trivial is irrelevant. In this thread people show that they do not know logic, nor physics. Called to do a fallacy while that was not true. But reply one of my arguments with a fallacy. All this while having my questions ignored. So have fun doing your naval gazing and enjoy your live in your “logical” bubble
  2. To learn more about proves please read this book https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Mathematical_Proof/Methods_of_Proof/Proof_by_Contrapositive You ignored my point that if an instance (any insurance) of a preposition makes a premise to be reconsider an axiom ... the possibility that an axiom is false needs to be consider. God, this interface is terrible
  3. Faith is something that cannot be probe wrong .... Which is how people treat the law of identity ... If something violets any axiom it needs to be proved wrong ... Not just that is wrong because it violate axiom a. Please provide a quote implying that is bad contradicting yourself, we do it all the time like we know that last piece of desert is bad for us. Not that this is not a profe that contradiction exist on an Oblectivist sence since one state is internal. About the sad thing is way more common than you think. Please visit Sarte's the myth of sisyphus
  4. What is your point? The comment was in response of someone not knowing what spooky action at distance and insulting me for it.
  5. This explanation said that there is no black holes involved, so if I don't understand it, there are more clueless commenters
  6. Apparently he did not touch the subject https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ Even by myself? You do not give me any details so I have to ask. So someone that thinks that life do not have several, and is depressed (to avoid the it only exist in the person head) but do not kill himself. What do you call it?
  7. And let me see if I understand what you mean ... If a contradiction is found is wrong, because the law of Identity has to be taken as an article of faith? Yes please. Philosophie is a science, you like it or not. When I talked about my belief?
  8. "Falsifiablity" is not about proving something wrong. Is about the possibility for the profe to exist. If it is not possible to prove that something is wrong there is an article of faith and not science. I don't know what is Popper’s position on existence.
  9. I did not grasp it because your explanation is very bad and please explain how my explanation violate the law of identity.
  10. I will as soon as my question gets answer ... Don't worry about corollary. I guess if I have so much trouble getting the answer, if I ask for more I will be shooting myself in the foot
  11. This site is crap ... Is the third time I post and evrytime I got an error. This is no way to have a conversation. Anyway I keep asking what does "contradictions are impossible but contradictions exists" mean with no answer. I think I'm losing my time so unless someone can explain it do not expect to heard for me.
  12. What you are bescriving is basic human life, the one you and I need to navegate everyday, life is full of contradictions ... and we need to live with them.
  13. What will disprove me .... About what? That people get wet if they go swimming, that's easy show me an example that just went swimming and is dry. About saying that contradictions are not possible but possible just I want to know what does it mean. Is that the bust insult you could come with? Because your creativity is exceptional.
  14. Life is uncertant that is a fact. It does not care about the law of identity or any law ... As and example are you certain of what will happen in 5 minutes. This is not a falacy of appel to authority ... Sorry Einsten oppinion on physics is not a falacy. Using his opinion about something unrelated is. This is exactly what I said.
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...