Jose

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.

The contradiction is not the distance but the speed, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, based on general relativity. But it this case information propagates instantly from one corner of the universe to another ... I did not elaborate on the scenario, because its a very well know one. It was proposed by Albert Einstein

What is the difference from one and the other.

That is exactly my point. It my be a premise missing, it might be a contradiction or the problem might be bad formulated. We actually do not know, we need a philosophy that can deal with the uncertainly of the real world, and Objectivism fails to do that

Sure ... https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/what-is-objectivism/ look for the paragraph that starts with "Given the many values on which human life and happiness depend" http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/contradictions.html https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ayn_rand_163204

Yes no problem. One of the objectivist principles is that there can not be contradictions, and find a Contradiction just prove objectivist right. Can you explain what you mean that contradiction are possible and impossible? My previous post should say "can not" instead of con.

So A and ~A are possible where A is saying that A and ~A con possible to coexist? I can see your logic.

My prof is not by contradiction, you need to review your logic. From Wikipedia "In logic and mathematics proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by showing that assuming the proposition to be false leads to a contradiction." which is not what my prof does ... it shows the existence of just one example that it is not possible to exist for the statement. What you said on your second paragraph is what I wanted to said about fallibility ... it is not a valid position say "The opposite exist therefore the original position is right" It is like setting up an experiment if the result is A then the theory stands and if it is B the theory does not stand. What you said is like saying because is B then the theory stands. Also to blow your mind there are some experiments proving the spooky action at distance.

I did not that. I said that the systems can have contradictions and still be valid. Also I did not use contradiction on my proof. Using symbolic logic: (all) AB ..........(1) Where A is valid system B is does not have contradiction. So if is prove that exist one valid system that allow contradiction (1) is false. In other words if (exist) A~B is true then (1) is false. (exist) A~B is science and the contradiction is the spooky action at distance. So my prof does use contradiction.

I love when people are as insightful in their comments. If there is something that you do not understand I am more than happy to explain, but if you base your comments in insults they are not helpful to say the least.

* * * * * Split from How Best to Attack Ayn Rand's System * * * * * It is even easier to prove And wrong ... in just three steps: 1 Made them agree that a system do not support having contradictions 2 Point to any contradiction in science. Like the one about entitlement and information traveling faster than light 3 Grab popcorn and enjoy watching them strogle