A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

[Ben_Sinner]

Why can’t a thing be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way?

How is the Law of Contradiction pre-supposed in every single assertion we make, even when one denies it?

“If one believes LNC is false. They also have to believe LNC is true as well.” Ok, so what’s wrong with LNC being both true and false at the same time?

Maybe a thing can be and not be at the same time, we just aren’t perceiving it or believe we are only witnessing one or the other?

 

[dshix]

Doesn’t it seem self-evident?

You can’t both be a white person and a black person at the same time.
You can’t both believe that God exists and not believe he exists at the same time.
You can’t exist and not exist at the same time.

This doesn’t really require a lot of proof. Our faculty of reason is designed to understand logic, and the human reason can see that this principle holds true.

If you’re interested in seeing it discussed, you can look Aristotle’s Metaphysics.

As to the question of “what’s wrong with LNC being both true and false at the same time”: it’s nonsense. To say that something can be both be and not be “true and not true at the same time” at the same time is complete nonsense. People who really take something like that seriously are either navel gazing, suffering mental illness, or both.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Why can’t a thing be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way?

How is the Law of Contradiction pre-supposed in every single assertion we make, even when one denies it?

“If one believes LNC is false. They also have to believe LNC is true as well.” Ok, so what’s wrong with LNC being both true and false at the same time?

Maybe a thing can be and not be at the same time, we just aren’t perceiving it or believe we are only witnessing one or the other?

Yes, maybe you are right, and also wrong at the same time when you believe that.

 

[johnnyc176]

Is Jesus both the Way, the Truth and the Life and not?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Yes, maybe you are right, and also wrong at the same time when you believe that.

That is, literally, impossible. You cannot be both correct about something, and wrong about it; at least not with something which has no distinct parts.

It’s the first and most fundamental law of logical deduction and reasoning, the Law of Non-Contradiction, and it is upon this law that all reason is founded.

If something has multiple parts, then I can be right about some parts and wrong about others, but in terms of any single aspect, I cannot be both right and wrong at the same time.

If this law is not true, then all of human reasoning breaks down, and we can know nothing. However, the assertion that the law of non-contradiction is false is a self-defeating premise. If the LNC is false, then we cannot trust our own reason which lead us to determine that it is false, therefore we cannot reason our way into asserting that it is false.

 

[paduard]

I think it is called a paradox.
paduard

 

[o_mlly]

Why can’t a thing be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way?

How is the Law of Contradiction pre-supposed in every single assertion we make, even when one denies it?

“If one believes LNC is false. They also have to believe LNC is true as well.” Ok, so what’s wrong with LNC being both true and false at the same time?

Maybe a thing can be and not be at the same time, we just aren’t perceiving it or believe we are only witnessing one or the other?

Eastern philosophers often negate the LNC.
Dialetheism appears to be a much more common and recurrent view in Eastern Philosophy than in the West. In ancient Indian logic/metaphysics, there were standardly four possibilities to be considered on any statement at issue: that it is true (only), false (only), neither true nor false, or both true and false. Buddhist logicians sometimes added a fifth possibility: none of these. (Both positions were called the catushkoti.) The Jains went even further and advocated the possibility of contradictory values of the kind: true (only) and both true and false.Which tends to end dialogue with western philosopher in search of the truth.

 

[dshix]

Eastern philosophers often negate the LNC.
Dialetheism appears to be a much more common and recurrent view in Eastern Philosophy than in the West. In ancient Indian logic/metaphysics, there were standardly four possibilities to be considered on any statement at issue: that it is true (only), false (only), neither true nor false, or both true and false. Buddhist logicians sometimes added a fifth possibility: none of these. (Both positions were called the catushkoti.) The Jains went even further and advocated the possibility of contradictory values of the kind: true (only) and both true and false.Which tends to end dialogue with western philosopher in search of the truth.

How do these Eastern philosophers try to justify this odd form of “logic”?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

How do these Eastern philosophers try to justify this odd form of “logic”?

I’m curious as well. If a statement can be both true and false, then there is no way to know if it is true or false. If you can’t determine the validity of a statement, you can’t advance; at least not in a meaningful way.

 

[o_mlly]

How do these Eastern philosophers try to justify this odd form of “logic”?

I failed to note my source: plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/ Read all about it.

 

[dshix]

I failed to note my source: plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/ Read all about it.

I have a feeling this is going to painful to read. I’ll get to it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I failed to note my source: plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/ Read all about it.

All of their examples deal with subjective interpretation, that is, the interpretation of a set of characteristics which, when summed, produce a conclusion; but who’s interpretation is dependent on viewpoint.

A couple of the examples they give is the transition state of a person moving from room to room. At one point they are in a room, at another point they are not. They claim that there must be a point during the transition when they are both in the room, and not in the room. This is no basis for the assertion that this point must exist. Viewer A may see the person as inside the room, and viewer B may see them as outside of the room, but the basis of this decision is subjective, therefore it cannot be used to say that they are both inside and outside of the room. The paradox only exists because the frame of reference from which the conclusion is being drawn is not constant. If, prior to observation, the people had decided on an objective set of criteria to dictate when a person is inside and outside of a room (i.e., an objective basis from which to measure the “truthfulness” of a statement), then this paradoxical state is impossible, because at one point they do not meet the requirements, and at the next point they do meet them.

The other issue is that all of their examples deal with multiple parts, and combining those parts into a single whole conclusion. As I said above, it is possible for the state of individual parts to shift while other parts remain true such as the person’s arm is now outside of the room, while his torso is within it). However, it is not possible for the arm to be inside of the room and outside of it. When the arm is then applied to “whole” of the person, then parts of the person can be inside of the room and parts can be outside of the room; however, this does not disprove the LNC since the individual aspects which comprise the whole are still either in or out of the room.

I also find it telling that the article’s author simple dismissed the primary argument against this position, one penned by Aristotle, without so much as a cursory explanation of what that arguments is. He simply says that it is convoluted and circular, without providing any evidence to back that claim up. It is generally telling when the person arguing a point is unwilling to address major arguments against their position and instead dismiss them offhand. That would be like me saying that I believe that the Earth is flat, and dismissing all the physical and observable evidence to the contrary as forgeries not worth my time dissecting. You just can’t do that when trying to make a scholarly point.

 

[o_mlly]

All of their examples deal with subjective interpretation, that is, the interpretation of a set of characteristics which, when summed, produce a conclusion; but who’s interpretation is dependent on viewpoint.

A couple of the examples they give is the transition state of a person moving from room to room. At one point they are in a room, at another point they are not. They claim that there must be a point during the transition when they are both in the room, and not in the room. This is no basis for the assertion that this point must exist. Viewer A may see the person as inside the room, and viewer B may see them as outside of the room, but the basis of this decision is subjective, therefore it cannot be used to say that they are both inside and outside of the room. The paradox only exists because the frame of reference from which the conclusion is being drawn is not constant. If, prior to observation, the people had decided on an objective set of criteria to dictate when a person is inside and outside of a room (i.e., an objective basis from which to measure the “truthfulness” of a statement), then this paradoxical state is impossible, because at one point they do not meet the requirements, and at the next point they do meet them.

The other issue is that all of their examples deal with multiple parts, and combining those parts into a single whole conclusion. As I said above, it is possible for the state of individual parts to shift while other parts remain true such as the person’s arm is now outside of the room, while his torso is within it). However, it is not possible for the arm to be inside of the room and outside of it. When the arm is then applied to “whole” of the person, then parts of the person can be inside of the room and parts can be outside of the room; however, this does not disprove the LNC since the individual aspects which comprise the whole are still either in or out of the room.

I also find it telling that the article’s author simple dismissed the primary argument against this position, one penned by Aristotle, without so much as a cursory explanation of what that arguments is. He simply says that it is convoluted and circular, without providing any evidence to back that claim up. It is generally telling when the person arguing a point is unwilling to address major arguments against their position and instead dismiss them offhand. That would be like me saying that I believe that the Earth is flat, and dismissing all the physical and observable evidence tot he contrary as forgeries not worth my time dissecting. You jsut can’t do that when trying to make a scholarly point.

Self-evident truths, as are the three fundamental laws of logic, cannot be argued for or defended by logic. They can only be accepted or rejected. If not accepted then no meaningful dialogue can occur between the one who denies and the one who accepts.

For example, the “flat earth” argument is not self-evident and must be argued. On the other hand, all men are created with equal rights is self-evident.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Self-evident truths, as are the three fundamental laws of logic, cannot be argued for or defended by logic. They can only be accepted or rejected. If not accepted then no meaningful dialogue can occur between the one who denies and the one who accepts.

For example, the “flat earth” argument is not self-evident and must be argued. On the other hand, all men are created with equal rights is self-evident.

What makes that assertion more self-evident than the assertion that something cannot be both true and false? In fact, the later proposition has been treated as true for far, far longer than the former.

 

[Ben_Sinner]

All of their examples deal with subjective interpretation, that is, the interpretation of a set of characteristics which, when summed, produce a conclusion; but who’s interpretation is dependent on viewpoint.

A couple of the examples they give is the transition state of a person moving from room to room. At one point they are in a room, at another point they are not. They claim that there must be a point during the transition when they are both in the room, and not in the room. This is no basis for the assertion that this point must exist. Viewer A may see the person as inside the room, and viewer B may see them as outside of the room, but the basis of this decision is subjective, therefore it cannot be used to say that they are both inside and outside of the room. The paradox only exists because the frame of reference from which the conclusion is being drawn is not constant. If, prior to observation, the people had decided on an objective set of criteria to dictate when a person is inside and outside of a room (i.e., an objective basis from which to measure the “truthfulness” of a statement), then this paradoxical state is impossible, because at one point they do not meet the requirements, and at the next point they do meet them.

The other issue is that all of their examples deal with multiple parts, and combining those parts into a single whole conclusion. As I said above, it is possible for the state of individual parts to shift while other parts remain true such as the person’s arm is now outside of the room, while his torso is within it). However, it is not possible for the arm to be inside of the room and outside of it. When the arm is then applied to “whole” of the person, then parts of the person can be inside of the room and parts can be outside of the room; however, this does not disprove the LNC since the individual aspects which comprise the whole are still either in or out of the room.

I also find it telling that the article’s author simple dismissed the primary argument against this position, one penned by Aristotle, without so much as a cursory explanation of what that arguments is. He simply says that it is convoluted and circular, without providing any evidence to back that claim up. It is generally telling when the person arguing a point is unwilling to address major arguments against their position and instead dismiss them offhand. That would be like me saying that I believe that the Earth is flat, and dismissing all the physical and observable evidence to the contrary as forgeries not worth my time dissecting. You just can’t do that when trying to make a scholarly point.

That article was also made by a renowed believer in dialetheism as well, Graham Priest. I was kind of shocked to see that.

 

[o_mlly]

What makes that assertion more self-evident than the assertion that something cannot be both true and false? In fact, the later proposition has been treated as true for far, far longer than the former.

I do not think “self-evidence” is an issue of degree but one of kind. A proposition is either self-evident or not.

If a proposition is self-evidently true then it has always been so. Recognition by mankind is nice but not necessary.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I do not think “self-evidence” is an issue of degree but one of kind. A proposition is either self-evident or not.

If a proposition is self-evidently true then it has always been so. Recognition by mankind is nice but not necessary.

I agree with you, however, you didn’t actually answer my question. What makes the assertion "All men are created equal,’ more self-evident than “Something cannot be both true and not true?”

You are claiming that something is self-evident, and seeming to claim that something else is not; however, from my perspective they are both equally self-evident.

I have also presented a fairly detailed rebuttal to the entire concept of Dialetheism, but you have chosen to ignore the majority of in favor of attacking a simple analogy which I threw in as an afterthought. This is another common tactic used when a person cannot offer a coherent rebuttal to an argument (much like simply stating that an opposing viewpoint is circular or irrational rather than addressing their claims.)

(Please don’t take this as a personal attack. I’d just don’t see a rational way of defending that something can both be true and false simultaneously. I mean no offense to you personally.)

 

[inocente]

A couple of the examples they give is the transition state of a person moving from room to room. At one point they are in a room, at another point they are not. They claim that there must be a point during the transition when they are both in the room, and not in the room. This is no basis for the assertion that this point must exist. Viewer A may see the person as inside the room, and viewer B may see them as outside of the room, but the basis of this decision is subjective, therefore it cannot be used to say that they are both inside and outside of the room. The paradox only exists because the frame of reference from which the conclusion is being drawn is not constant. If, prior to observation, the people had decided on an objective set of criteria to dictate when a person is inside and outside of a room (i.e., an objective basis from which to measure the “truthfulness” of a statement), then this paradoxical state is impossible, because at one point they do not meet the requirements, and at the next point they do meet them.

I think differences between observers may be the point of Priest’s example.

Suppose instead a computer system with multiple (name removed by moderator)uts. Each (name removed by moderator)ut can read false or true. The system then has four states: false (all (name removed by moderator)uts read false), true (all (name removed by moderator)uts read true), both (some (name removed by moderator)uts read false, others true), and none (no (name removed by moderator)uts available).

This is the kind of logic needed in telemetry and corresponds to the four states Priest gives for Eastern philosophy.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

That is, literally, impossible. You cannot be both correct about something, and wrong about it; at least not with something which has no distinct parts.

It’s the first and most fundamental law of logical deduction and reasoning, the Law of Non-Contradiction, and it is upon this law that all reason is founded.

If something has multiple parts, then I can be right about some parts and wrong about others, but in terms of any single aspect, I cannot be both right and wrong at the same time.

If this law is not true, then all of human reasoning breaks down, and we can know nothing. However, the assertion that the law of non-contradiction is false is a self-defeating premise. If the LNC is false, then we cannot trust our own reason which lead us to determine that it is false, therefore we cannot reason our way into asserting that it is false.

Oh, you are killing me! Please, Ben_Sinner, defend me, what can we say now?

 

[Ginny89]

Thank you for the topic. I have struggled with this myself. I am no philosopher. The way I see it: we have a choice between two world views: the Eastern and Western. The Western takes for granted the truth about the intuitions of logic found in human beings ie the law of non contradiction. This is accepted the same way we accept the basic intuition of pursuing good and rejecting bad (conscience) ie you can’t prove them. The East doesnt take the intuitions of logic as absolutely true.

My view is that if the LNC is true, it must also be true that God MUST exist, and highly probably true that Jesus is God and the Catholic Church is his church. I have always thought that Catholicism is the rational end-game for someone who is committed to consistency who holds that LNC is true.

If not, then Buddhism is the end-game in the other direction. In which case, Catholicism is true, though not the only truth. I guess this explains why Eastern religions are the most accomodating of other religions: they dont from a true/false dichotomy and can’t really “reject” anything completely. Even evil is seen in a fuzzy way from this perspective.