RE: Matt Dilahunty On The Logical Absolutes
November 19, 2016 at 9:39 am
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2016 at 9:39 am by brewer.)
(November 19, 2016 at 9:28 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: 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.
I'm not drawing another circle, I am not changing the diagram. If what is inside the circle is "everything" then what is outside the circle?
Schrondiger's cat is an explanation, using every day objects of, for the state of superposition in quantum mechanics.
Did you even look/read at the list of paradoxes? They are not all about language.
Are these "absolutes of logic" simply a philosophical tool?
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.