RE: Matt Dilahunty On The Logical Absolutes
November 19, 2016 at 11:21 am
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2016 at 11:22 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(November 19, 2016 at 10:51 am)mh.brewer Wrote: 1)"Not everything" is "some thing" that is not "everything".
See you're just playing about with language now. "not everything" is not some thing. Not everything can be not anything.
Change what's within the circle to "something" and what's without it to "not something" and your equivocation, hopefully, will stop.
If you still struggle with playing with language and words instead of the logic behind it, just label everything within the circle as "A" and everything without as "not A".
I think "something" will work though.
And remember, you haven't justified that "not everything" is "some thing".
In fact, if "everything" is indeed everything then "not everything" is indeed nothing.
It also works, then, if you put within the circle "not nothing" and everything outside of it as "nothing".
Quote:2) It's not about the box, it's about the state of the cat.
Either the cat is dead in the box or it isn't. It is about a box. The point is supposedly when you close the box the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. That's not actually logically possible--that's not the point of it. It's an analogy to help explain a quantum principle, it's not about something being able to be A and not A at the same time.
As Matt noted:
(Transcripted by me):
Matt Dilahunty Wrote:[...]This is difficult for some people to grasp... particularly people who have been developing an interest in multiverse, quantum mechanics, quantum indeterminacy... things that run counter to our intutitions... and they will send in examples sometimes that they think violate the laws of logical thought. And in fact they don't violate those laws. I've had people say that "Well light acts like a particle and a wave". Okay. That's not a violation of the laws of logical thought. The fact that it doesn't fit into one category that you have defined exclusively is not a violation of this...and when it comes to things like quantum indeterminacy you could say "a thing is indeterminate or not indeterminate and it's not neither or both."[...]
Quote:It seems that you're saying it can't be applied to all of science. In my book that does not seem like an absolute.
It may seem that that is what that is what I am saying to you, but that is not what I am saying. It may not seem absolute in your "book" but it is absolute.
I'm not saying ti can't be applied to all of science. I'm saying it is applied and must be applied to absolutely everything and it can't be violated. You literally can't argue against them without presupposing them, thereby any argument against them is a self-defeating argument.
Even the empiricism which science is founded on presupposes the law of identity "that which I view when I am experimenting is that which I review when I am experimenting".
Quote:3) Again, not all are about language.
Again, they all involve logical language. Paradoxes are about the limits of our symbols and our explanation and our understanding, they're not about violating A=A. That is the definition of logically impossible.
Quote:4) Answer the question, are they a tool of philosophy? What you said strikes me as circular. The problem would then be the acceptance of "absolute". Can "absolute" not be questioned from the beginning? OK, I don't accept "absolute". See #2. I'm not redefining, I'm not accepting your definition.
I did answer the question. They're not a tool of philosophy they're logical absolutes.
It's not my definition. It's not a definition. It's the entire framework of definitions themselves. You can't even have a definition at all without assuming that a definition is a definition of A=A. You literally can't argue against A=A without presupposing the truth of it. "If A=A is false then A=A is false" is itself an expression of "If A then A" or "A=A".
