Some questions about the law of non-contradiction

[JerryZ]

Holy smokes! Each “Law” has rules or principles that pertain to the applicability of that “Law”

The User that “wants” to apply a “Law” HAS TO OBEY it’s rules of applicability.
Period, end of story.

Your example sentence, by being a paradox, breaks the third principle of the “Law of Non Contradiction”. Hence you cannot use it. Period, end of story.

…

 

[Tomdstone]

Holy smokes! Each “Law” has rules or principles that pertain to the applicability of that “Law”

The User that “wants” to apply a “Law” HAS TO OBEY it’s rules of applicability.
Period, end of story.

Your example sentence, by being a paradox, breaks the third principle of the “Law of Non Contradiction”. Hence you cannot use it. Period, end of story.

…

I don’t see how the “law” of non-contradiction can be either verifiable or falsifiable. Further, paraconsistent logics such as dialetheism deny the validity of the law.

 

[JerryZ]

I don’t see how the “law” of non-contradiction can be either verifiable or** falsifiable.** Further, paraconsistent logics such as dialetheism deny the validity of the law.

Perhaps you wanted to say “I don’t see how the “law” of non-contradiction can be either verifiable or not”.

Dialetheism cannot deny a Law that by Principle or Rule cannot accept a sentence that is self referential and further becomes a paradox. Such expression has been excluded from the applicability of the LNC.

Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called “true contradictions”, dialetheia, or nondualisms.

It is obvious that you simply want to make up your own rules as to how to apply a particular Law or principle. At this point there is not much any one can add.
This is my last post on this thread.

…

 

[Tomdstone]

It is obvious that you simply want to make up your own rules as to how to apply a particular Law or principle.
…

I am not the one who made up or invented paraconsistent logical systems such as Dialetheism which deny the principle of non-Contradiction. Paraconsistent logical systems appear to treat the “law” of non-Contradiction as nothing more nor less than an axiom similar to the parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry, perhaps because the “law” of non-Contradiction is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. But an axiom, such as the parallel postulate, is simply an assumption made without proof and does not necessarily imply that there are other systems, such as non-euclidean geometry, which may be perfectly acceptable.
Further, the “law” of non-Contradiction is said to apply in a two valued logical system, which ignores the possibility of multi-valued logical systems.

 

[Ben_Sinner]

I have another question

I read a blog a few weeks ago by a Catholic that stated the following statement could reject the law of non-contradiction without causing a problem.

thirdmillennialtemplar.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/a-weaker-law-of-excluded-middle/:

"Not everything is both true and false

The statement is assuming that there are at least some things that are both true and false, but not everything is.

If that statement is true, then that means the statement’s assumption: there are, at least, some things that can be both true and false: is true

If the statement is false, then everything is both true and false

So either way the law of LNC could be rejected here.

Is there a way to solve this one and prove this guy wrong? Something seems fishy about this.