Matt Dilahunty On The Logical Absolutes

[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.

[brewer]

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?

[Edwardo Piet]

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?

Not everything.

Schrondiger's cat is an explanation, using every day objects of, for the state of superposition in quantum mechanics.

Yeah. But it's still either in the box or not in the box.... science defines things differently. Science can define "nothing" as something and an "atom" as something divisible. When Quantum Theorists talk about something being "there" or "not there" they mean in a different sense. Or at least that's the only way something could ever be there and not there at the same time. If the meanings of the words are changed, which doesn't cut it.

Did you even look/read at the list of paradoxes? They are not all about language.

I'm already familiar with them all (although I haven't read up on them in ages and I'm very forgetful). Logical systems themselves use logical language.

Are these "absolutes of logic" simply a philosophical tool?

They're absolutes of logic. For the reasons explained by Matt Dilahunty. It's literally impossible for them to not be absolute unless you redefine the very meaning of "absolute" in which case you're not addressing the problem.

[Excited Penguin]

What logical absolutes?

The ones described in the video.

I'm not watching it. Which is why I asked you about it. 

This is not YouTube, it's a discussion forum .

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh, are you not familiar with the logical absolutes?

Yes, it's a discussion forum. It's a discussion forum where YouTube videos are embeddable and the OP is about discussing an embedded YouTube video.

If we're here to discuss a video you haven't watched... I don't even.

[brewer]

1)"Not everything" is "some thing" that is not "everything". 

2) It's not about the box, it's about the state of the cat. 

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. 

3) Again, not all are about language.

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.

[Tiberius]

I thought the point of Schroedinger's cat is that the state of the cat is unknown until it is observed, and while the common thought is that it is both dead and alive, in actuality it is one or the other.

[Edwardo Piet]

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".

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):

[...]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."[...]

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".

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.

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".

[Edwardo Piet]

I thought the point of Schroedinger's cat is that the state of the cat is unknown until it is observed, and while the common thought is that it is both dead and alive, in actuality it is one or the other.

Exactly right.

[Edwardo Piet]

More transcription by me:

I raise the point in the explanation because I have some minor concerns that there are people who, failing to recognize the truth of this and the value of this, may set themselves up for mistakes. I don't know for sure but that's my quick take on the logical absolutes. There's a lot more to the subject;--there's no way a short video is going to encompass everything about the laws of thought--but hopefully between the different descriptions and the Venn Diagram people will realize that these are merely self-evident basic logical truths that we then use as the foundation. So that when somebody asks us "Well, how do you know what you know?" or "How do you know that this is true?" or "How do you know that 1+1= 2?" it's because everything reduces to this simple diagram, the foundation of set theory, which we know is absolutely true.

The other day I mentioned some people who were trying to multiple possibilities: that something becomes possible if it's possible that it's possible. That just doesn't work. But if you begin with truths that's how you can affirm other truths. It is the foundation on which we can construct logical syllogisms and propositional logic and determine their validity and soundness.

My emphasis. Pay particular attention to my bold.

It's not a constructed system it's the foundation of it. A thing would be a thing whether we were around to define it or call it a "thing" or not. A=A whether we're around to call it "A=A" or not. So, those who say it's purely conceptual are making a use/mention error.