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

[o_mlly]

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.)

None taken. In post #7 I introduced dialetheism but did not and do not subscribe to its arguments. I merely made the point that in the East the LNC is argued as not self-evident by honest men.

In responding to your post, I did not attempt to rebut what I thought did not need rebuttal. I only commented on the state of self-evidence to be binary state rather than a continuum, that is either a statement is self-evident or it is not. To speak of a self-evident statement as more self-evident than another does not make sense to me.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

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.

I’ve addressed this twice already. A distinction needs to be made between a conclusion formed from the sum of multiple parts, and the state of each of those parts. Per your example, If you have four ports, all of which contribute to a final state, it is possible for the individual ports to be both true and false. However, it is not possible for a single port to be both true and false.

This type of logic is all well and good when considering complex systems, but it cannot be applied to the individual aspects that make up that system. As such, while it is certainly a fun thought experiment, it cannot actually be used to side-step the LNC.

In responding to your post, I did not attempt to rebut what I thought did not need rebuttal. I only commented on the state of self-evidence to be binary state rather than a continuum, that is either a statement is self-evident or it is not. To speak of a self-evident statement as more self-evident than another does not make sense to me.

My point is that you cannot use the fact that a proposition is self-evident as justification for that proposition. This is because, for a person who rejects a self-evident Truth, the Truth is not self-evident. That’s not to say that it is not objectively self-evident, only that they may be wrongly asserting that it is not. If they reject the premise that it is self-evident, then the fact of its self-evidence will not convince them of it.

Take, for example, the existence of God. I believe that to be wholly and completely self-evident, based on the mere fact that there is something. However, for an atheist who rejects the claim that God is self-evident, God’s self-evidence is not proof of His existence. It doesn’t matter that He is self evident, because such a person has rejected the Truth of His self-evidence.

To put it more simply, if I don’t believe that all men are created equal, simply telling me that it is a self-evident fact isn’t going to convince me of it. I am 100% wrong on that point, but that doesn’t change my position.

It can, however, be a useful tool if you’re able to present your reasons for why it is self-evident, and then ask someone to refute that position; such as asking someone why they think another human being is inferior.

 

[inocente]

I’ve addressed this twice already. A distinction needs to be made between a conclusion formed from the sum of multiple parts, and the state of each of those parts. Per your example, If you have four ports, all of which contribute to a final state, it is possible for the individual ports to be both true and false. However, it is not possible for a single port to be both true and false.

An (name removed by moderator)ut which gets the least significant bit of a nanosecond clock will read false one moment, true the next, false the next, etc.

This type of logic is all well and good when considering complex systems, but it cannot be applied to the individual aspects that make up that system. As such, while it is certainly a fun thought experiment, it cannot actually be used to side-step the LNC.

But you’re making a assumption. Suppose in the above example, you always read a value of false. You can’t tell whether it’s because you happen only to look during the even clock ticks. If you want to be rigorous, you have to allow the extra states. Perhaps (?) those Eastern philosophers with their four states are questioning the reliability of a priori assumptions.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

An (name removed by moderator)ut which gets the least significant bit of a nanosecond clock will read false one moment, true the next, false the next, etc.

Correct, and at each of those specific moments, it is that particular state. It cannot occupy both states at once. The fact that you’re specifying an imperceptible measurement of time doesn’t change anything. At one nanosecond, it is true, at the other, it is false. It never occupy’s both point simultaneously.

But you’re making a assumption. Suppose in the above example, you always read a value of false. You can’t tell whether it’s because you happen only to look during the even clock ticks. If you want to be rigorous, you have to allow the extra states. Perhaps (?) those Eastern philosophers with their four states are questioning the reliability of a priori assumptions.

You’re bringing subjective observation into the question. I’m not talking about what is observed, I’m talking about what is. Even if the only state a person ever sees is false, if it’s ever true then it’s true, period. The fact that it isn’t observed as being true doesn’t change what it is.

 

[inocente]

Correct, and at each of those specific moments, it is that particular state. It cannot occupy both states at once. The fact that you’re specifying an imperceptible measurement of time doesn’t change anything. At one nanosecond, it is true, at the other, it is false. It never occupy’s both point simultaneously.

You’re bringing subjective observation into the question. I’m not talking about what is observed, I’m talking about what is. Even if the only state a person ever sees is false, if it’s ever true then it’s true, period. The fact that it isn’t observed as being true doesn’t change what it is.

I’m not trying to be difficult for the sake of it. These are not just issues with computer systems. There are metaphysical questions such as how do you know that it still is when you’re not looking? How do you know that if one observer sees ‘true’ and another at the same instant sees ‘false’ that isn’t the way reality really is? Is your claim that it cannot occupy both states at once always a logical necessity in all possible worlds, or is it just that you’ve never yet known it occupy both states at once in this world? Are these things we just have to accept as axioms?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Who said one cannot be in two rooms at the same time?
Whence the principle being broken?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Well if spherical earth is self-evident for those born on a space station then it is also self-evident that flat-earth hypothesis is false.

But of course if we don’t accept that space stations really exist then its not self-evident.

So if we cannot agree on a common frame of reference then even self-evident truths are not self evident I suppose.

I am not sure that all men are created with equal rights is self-evident at all.
Clearly they aren’t in practice, though the education systems of some countries rightly indoctrinate children to accept that as self-evident from a young age.

 

[o_mlly]

Well if spherical earth is self-evident for those born on a space station then it is also self-evident that flat-earth hypothesis is false.

But of course if we don’t accept that space stations really exist then its not self-evident.

So if we cannot agree on a common frame of reference then even self-evident truths are not self evident I suppose.

The nature of a self-evident truth is that the proposition, well, needs no evidence. One proposing the earth as flat or spherical must produce some evidence – at least of his senses.

I am not sure that all men are created with equal rights is self-evident at all.
Clearly they aren’t in practice, though the education systems of some countries rightly indoctrinate children to accept that as self-evident from a young age.

If one believes that all men are created with equal rights and does not believe the proposition is self-evident then one must be able to prove the assertion. It is not an argument that the proposition “all men are created with equal rights” is not self-evident because some cannot see it, yet.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If one believes that all men are created with equal rights and does not believe the proposition is self-evident then one must be able to prove the assertion.

Why?
May as well say the reverse with equal validity. Perhaps more, for everywhere I see in practice it does not hold true.

It is not an argument that the proposition “all men are created with equal rights” is not self-evident because some cannot see it, yet.

So self-evident is decided by simple majority vote, 2/3, representative vote, bright people only vote…?

Not very “self-evident”

 

[o_mlly]

Why?
May as well say the reverse [that all men are created with unequal rights] with equal validity. Perhaps more, for everywhere I see in practice it does not hold true. …

One can say whatever they will but saying so does not make it true.

Where are looking that the opposite – all men are created with unequal rights – is considered a valid statement?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, …
ushistory.org/DECLARATION/document/The truth value of a proposition is independent of the practice of that proposition. If truth were dependent on practice then direct abortion would be a moral act.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

One can say whatever they will but saying so does not make it true.

Where are looking that the opposite – all men are created with unequal rights – is considered a valid statement?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, …
ushistory.org/DECLARATION/document/The truth value of a proposition is independent of the practice of that proposition. If truth were dependent on practice then direct abortion would be a moral act.

As observation appears to confirm the opposite of the ideal you assert surely the burden is on the idealist to prove his assertion?
If the idealist simply responds, “it’s self evident” then the idealist admits he cannot so prove.

You ask where people do not have equal rights? USA. Unborn children have less rights that infants. Blacks have less rights to life when arrested by white police officers. US history does not seem to have shown it was self evident that women have the vote.

Sure, elected representatives can enforce such a principle in law for whatever reasons, but that does not make this principle true, let alone a self evident truth.
Though of course it’s self evident it’s enshrined in law.
That doesn’t mean it is self evidently enshrined in the minds, let alone the hearts, of the majority of people as true.

 

[o_mlly]

As observation appears to confirm the opposite of the ideal you assert surely the burden is on the idealist to prove his assertion?
If the idealist simply responds, “it’s self evident” then the idealist admits he cannot so prove.

One who proposes a statement as self-evident may be but is not necessarily an idealist. I think it more likely that the proposer to be a realist. The definition of a self-evident statement is that the statement needs no proof. The relation of the subject to the predicate is obvious. For example, prove the law of non-contradiction. Iff you offer no argument then you are correct.

You ask where people do not have equal rights? USA. Unborn children have less rights that infants. Blacks have less rights to life when arrested by white police officers. US history does not seem to have shown it was self evident that women have the vote.

Observations that the truth of a self-evident statement is not practiced does not disprove the self-evidence of the statement. It only shows examples of ignorance of the truth, willful or otherwise.

Sure, elected representatives can enforce such a principle in law for whatever reasons, but that does not make this principle true, let alone a self evident truth.
Though of course it’s self evident it’s enshrined in law.
That doesn’t mean it is self evidently enshrined in the minds, let alone the hearts, of the majority of people as true.

The legal code looks up to the moral code for its justification; not vice versa. If a self-evident truth is the basis for just laws then the lack or inability of the magistrate to enforce such laws does not make the laws unjust or the self-evident truth that supports those laws as no longer self-evident.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The definition of a self-evident statement is that the statement needs no proof. The relation of the subject to the predicate is obvious.

An immovable object resists all attempts to budge it.
The relationship of subject to object is obvious but it’s idealist truth not real truth and has no bearing on the real world at all. No such objects exist.

So too saying all men are equal, it cannot be demonstrated to be other than an idealist fiction. Internally self evidently true if one accepts the peculiar definitions of the terms used but having no bearing at all to the real world meaning of those terms where the relationship between subject and predicate is far from obvious.

 

[o_mlly]

An immovable object resists all attempts to budge it.
The relationship of subject to object is obvious but it’s idealist truth not real truth and has no bearing on the real world at all. No such objects exist.

So too saying all men are equal, it cannot be demonstrated to be other than an idealist fiction. Internally self evidently true if one accepts the peculiar definitions of the terms used but having no bearing at all to the real world meaning of those terms where the relationship between subject and predicate is far from obvious.

A bit confusing. Try to define a distinction between your terms “idealist truth” and “real truth.”

One cannot make such distinctions or apply such adjectives to truth because truth is singular. The statement, “That may be true for you but not for me” is meaningless. Reality is singular and only a mind which conforms to reality possess truth. If you believe reality is not singular but multiple then there is no basis for argumentation.

So friend, I see no value in continuing this exchange.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A bit confusing. Try to define a distinction between your terms “idealist truth” and “real truth.”

One cannot make such distinctions or apply such adjectives to truth because truth is singular. The statement, “That may be true for you but not for me” is meaningless. Reality is singular and only a mind which conforms to reality possess truth. If you believe reality is not singular but multiple then there is no basis for argumentation.

So friend, I see no value in continuing this exchange.

Philosophically it’s very simple. You have made the classic idealist mistake of assuming an apriori truth necessitates an applied aposteriori truth.

All unicorns have horns is a self evident truth. The truth of whether your unicorns actually exist is a completely different matter.

So too with your mythical “all men are equal”.

It is not at all clear whether the equal men of the kind you fantasize about actually exist. That is not self evident.

I can see why you do not wish to continue.