RE: Matt Dilahunty On The Logical Absolutes
November 19, 2016 at 9:28 am
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2016 at 9:29 am by Edwardo Piet.)
If you draw a circle around the circle then you've changed the diagram. Then it's the case that everything inside that circle is A and everything outside is "Not A". Changing the diagram can't supersede the fundamentals of logic.
Schrondiger's cat is a thought experiment. It's not literally about a cat being in a box and not in the box at exactly the same time. Physics can't supersede the fundamentals of logic.
Paradoxes occur because of the limits of our language. They don't contradict the fact that everything is what it is and isn't what it isn't. Logical paradoxes can't supersede the fundamentals of logic.
If what you're saying is true then what you're saying is true, if what you're saying is not true then what you're saying is not true. Once again, you have to invoke the absolutes themselves to prove yourself right and that's the definition of a self-defeating argument. Nothing can supersede the fundamentals of logic.
Schrondiger's cat is a thought experiment. It's not literally about a cat being in a box and not in the box at exactly the same time. Physics can't supersede the fundamentals of logic.
Paradoxes occur because of the limits of our language. They don't contradict the fact that everything is what it is and isn't what it isn't. Logical paradoxes can't supersede the fundamentals of logic.
If what you're saying is true then what you're saying is true, if what you're saying is not true then what you're saying is not true. Once again, you have to invoke the absolutes themselves to prove yourself right and that's the definition of a self-defeating argument. Nothing can supersede the fundamentals of logic.
