Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.

The same sense requires that the laws governing both the sub atomic and Macroscopic realms to operate in the same way (sense). They do not.

The problem with that lame definition is that it is is vague in that it uses the term "contradictory" and doesn't tell us what actually constitutes a contradiction. And you obviously don't know what a contradiction is either.

The far better (because it's very specific!) definition is how I have expressed it most of the time: A THING cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense.

Or another very good way to express the law very specifically is: A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same sense.

So, we can see immediately that you are talking about TWO (2) different things. You are talking about sub-atomic and macroscopic realms. And that, sir, is more than one thing! You are, again, comparing apples with oranges. (What else is new!?) The "same sense" requires only that a THING -- ONE thing is required to be understood in one sense and not in another. But you're attempting to bastardize the Law by saying that multiple things need to be understood in one sense only. You even used the term "realms" to denote multiple realms!

For crying out loud, Hcap, Google the Law and learn how it's used and what constitutes a bona fide contradiction and what doesn't! Study numerous examples of both!

Both you and your bud Actor need remedial courses in K-level logic! Not surprising since you especially cannot understand the difference between logical and chronological order!

Permit to give you a bona fide example of when A THING is not contradictory. I'll present an example that I asked Actor about but he was unable to reply because his great brain couldn't figure out what "sense" means. But here's the example, which I presented in question form to him.

My statement: Diane is my mother and is not my mother.. I asked Actor if this was necessarily a contradiction. It obviously is not! Why? Because Diane could be my mother in one sense and might not be my mother in another sense! And if you didn't have your thick skull so full of mush, I'd let you wrestle with this and try to figure this out for yourself, but I think I'm going to be compassionate and explain it to you explicitly, so that your entire weekend isn't ruined. Diane could be my foster mother (legal sense) AND not my natural mother (biological sense). Since there are two different senses involved, there is no contradiction.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The problem with that lame definition is that it is is vague in that it uses the term "contradictory" and doesn't tell us what actually constitutes a contradiction. And you obviously don't know what a contradiction is either.

The far better (because it's very specific!) definition is how I have expressed it most of the time: A THING cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense.
.

There is more that you are omitting....

In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof, and more specifically a form of indirect proof, that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition. It starts by assuming that the opposite proposition is true, and then shows that such an assumption leads to a contradiction. Proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, apagogical argument, proof by assuming the opposite, and reductio ad impossibilem. It is a particular kind of the more general form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum

..An existence proof by contradiction assumes that some object doesn't exist, and then proves that this would lead to a contradiction; thus, such an object must exist. Although it is quite freely used in mathematical proofs, not every school of mathematical thought accepts this kind of nonconstructive proof as universally valid.

.
What may be in contradiction, pertains to either a "thing" or noun, or an action or verb. The test of whether the "thing" or "action" is illogical by contradiction is modified under two conditions---SENSE and TIME.

Both the very small or sub atomic realm, and the very large or relativistic realm have vagaries that we do not fully understand now. Humans tend to use the things or actions of the mid range human scale realm and project those rather narrow limits above and below. Your use of human scale local laws limits the clarity of contradiction or non-contradiction.. You either do not apply sense correctly or are ignorant of how time varies on those other scales.

For instance not knowing that time varies with the velocity of the platform you are traveling on, nearing light speed, severely limits what you can say about how time affects your proclaimed so-called universal law of non-contradiction. As does your ignorance of the infinitesimal time scale's increased uncertainty.

So Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to the sub atomic but ironically and more interestingly may also apply to the human mind.

Knowing ones' own limits is an advantage. However one must be self aware of those limits.

You remind me of a minnow announcing his local pond's conditions are what a school of whales should expect in the pacific.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

There is more that you are omitting....
.
What may be in contradiction, pertains to either a "thing" or noun, or an action or verb. The test of whether the "thing" or "action" is illogical by contradiction is modified under two conditions---SENSE and TIME.

Both the very small or sub atomic realm, and the very large or relativistic realm have vagaries that we do not fully understand now. Humans tend to use the things or actions of the mid range human scale realm and project those rather narrow limits above and below. Your use of human scale local laws limits the clarity of contradiction or non-contradiction.. You either do not apply sense correctly or are ignorant of how time varies on those other scales.

For instance not knowing that time varies with the velocity of the platform you are traveling on, nearing light speed, severely limits what you can say about how time affects your proclaimed so-called universal law of non-contradiction. As does your ignorance of the infinitesimal time scale's increased uncertainty.

So Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to the sub atomic but ironically and more interestingly may also apply to the human mind.

Knowing ones' own limits is an advantage. However one must be self aware of those limits.

You remind me of a minnow announcing his local pond's conditions are what a school of whales should expect in the pacific.

First of all, I didn't omit anything. I quoted either Francis Schaeffer or Gordon Clarke who essentially said that foundational to human rational thought is the antithesis to statements we hear or read. This is so automatic to our minds we don't even have stop to think about doing this. It's the way we're wired.

For example, every proposition presupposes its antithesis, and it's upon this axiomatic, rock-solid foundation to which the Law of Noncontradiction is securely anchored -- and will forever be!

The bible talks a great deal about two realms -- this temporal reality and an eternal reality. Two very different realities and as we might expect, the two realities are so different that they're mutually exclusive to one another! In other words, they contradict one another in various ways. But does that mean that because one book speaks to both realities or realms that the bible is self-contradictory? Of course not! The only way we could have a contradiction pertaining to either of these two realms is if we assigned a quality of one to the other. Then we would run into a contradiction. For example, if we assigned mutability to the eternal order, we'd run head-long into problems with logic.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Multiverse hypothesis is exceeding lame and most scientists don't believe it.

What is your source for that? I agree that the concept is controversial among scientists but I've never seen anything amounting to a poll indicating what percentage of scientist accept it, what percentage don't believe it, and what percentage just don't know. So what's your source?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Try to stay focused, Sparky. We're talking about YOUR worldview.

Says who, Big Jon? You? What exempts your worldview from examination?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Biblical Theism is NOT a self-defeating worldview, and we can discuss that later.

Why not now?

Originally Posted by boxcar

But right now answer my questions in 5766 because you claimed that my second premise in my syllogism was not valid. So I need to know why.

I did not say it was not valid, only that it was unproven. Kind of like Euclid citing Theorem 7 to prove Theorem 5. If you are going cite things out of order like that then there is a great possibility that your reasoning is circular.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

My statement: Diane is my mother and is not my mother.. I asked Actor if this was necessarily a contradiction. It obviously is not! Why? Because Diane could be my mother in one sense and might not be my mother in another sense! And if you didn't have your thick skull so full of mush, (ad hominem attack) I'd let you wrestle with this and try to figure this out for yourself, but I think I'm going to be compassionate and explain it to you explicitly, so that your entire weekend isn't ruined. Diane could be my foster mother (legal sense) AND not my natural mother (biological sense). Since there are two different senses involved, there is no contradiction.

• The statement "Diane is my mother and is not my mother" is actually two statements which you attempt to disguise as one. A = "Diane is my mother". The original statement is then A & ~A. By the Law of Non-contradiction
  
  
  (A & ~A) = FALSE
  _
• "Diane could be my foster mother (legal sense) AND not my natural mother (biological sense)." What you are doing here is changing the definition of "mother" in mid-statement. By definition that is equivocation.
  
  You are making two statements: A = "Diane is my foster mother" and B = "Diane is my natural mother". The statement then becomes A & ~B. There is not enough information to determine a truth value for A & ~B. In fact, you are deliberately concealing information from the reader.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Both you and your bud Actor need remedial courses in K-level logic!

Have you completed a course in K-level logic?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The bible talks a great deal about two realms -- this temporal reality and an eternal reality. Two very different realities and as we might expect, the two realities are so different that they're mutually exclusive to one another! In other words, they contradict one another in various ways. But does that mean that because one book speaks to both realities or realms that the bible is self-contradictory? Of course not! The only way we could have a contradiction pertaining to either of these two realms is if we assigned a quality of one to the other. Then we would run into a contradiction. For example, if we assigned mutability to the eternal order, we'd run head-long into problems with logic

I am not talking of any Biblical "realms". We were talking about the Casimer effect and how that operates on the sub atomic realm where the laws are so different that 1/2 the universe is popping into existence and the other 1/2 is being destroyed. Which you said was a wrong conclusion that no one else had reached.

The bible has nothing to do with that in any way. In fact the atomic realm was never imagined before the Greeks. You and I were discussing science not religion. Later

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

• The statement "Diane is my mother and is not my mother" is actually two statements which you attempt to disguise as one. A = "Diane is my mother". The original statement is then A & ~A. By the Law of Non-contradiction
  
  
  (A & ~A) = FALSE
  _
• "Diane could be my foster mother (legal sense) AND not my natural mother (biological sense)." What you are doing here is changing the definition of "mother" in mid-statement. By definition that is equivocation.
  
  You are making two statements: A = "Diane is my foster mother" and B = "Diane is my natural mother". The statement then becomes A & ~B. There is not enough information to determine a truth value for A & ~B. In fact, you are deliberately concealing information from the reader.

I'm making a compound statement. And "mother" has broad definition.

Look up the definition of "mother" in the M-W dictionary. While the primary definition is "female parent", it can also mean "a woman in authority". So, a foster mother or an adoptive mother would be a woman in authority, or more specifically a mother with legal authority over a child -- an authority usually granted by a government agency. If you don't like the MW definition, write to them and complain about their equivocation tactics.

Further, all I asked is if the statement would necessarily be contradictory. It could be, but it's not necessarily, as I have clearly demonstrated. The statement was sufficiently ample to make a sound judgment and to come up with the one and only correct answer . But as I suspected, it was definitely above your pay grade to tackle.

Thanks for playing and proving my well justified suspicion.

Now answer my question in 5733 and 5774 regarding my second premise in my syllogism.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Have you completed a course in K-level logic?

What silly question, coming from you of all people.

Let's go back to Diane and my statement about her.

Diane = a thing (or a person)
"is my mother" = A
"is not my mother" = non-A

A thing cannot exist (or be) A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense (or in the same relationship in case "sense" shorts out your brain circuitry).

A and non-A are not in the same relationship with each other because A is in the legal sense and non-A is in the biological sense. Therefore, no contradiction.

Kool how that works, heh?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am not talking of any Biblical "realms". We were talking about the Casimer effect and how that operates on the sub atomic realm where the laws are so different that 1/2 the universe is popping into existence and the other 1/2 is being destroyed. Which you said was a wrong conclusion that no one else had reached.

The bible has nothing to do with that in any way. In fact the atomic realm was never imagined before the Greeks. You and I were discussing science not religion. Later

I simply drew an analogy between your two realms and the two realms in scripture. Don't have a cow, man.

And go back and read my 5772. Has it ever occurred to you that you're interpreting the results literally. Time to take a deep breath...

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm making a compound statement. And "mother" has broad definition.

Demonstrating that your entire argument is equivocal.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What silly question, coming from you of all people.

Yes. Absolutely silly. I knew without asking that you have not.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Kool how that works, heh?

Hilarious!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Supernatural hypothesis is exceeding lame and most scientists don't believe it.

FTFY!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I simply drew an analogy between your two realms and the two realms in scripture. Don't have a cow, man.

And go back and read my 5772. Has it ever occurred to you that you're interpreting the results literally. Time to take a deep breath...

This conversation about your narrow human scale version of the law of non-contradiction started wit you proclaiming ..

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Universe, therefore, had to have existed and not existed at the same time in the same sense in order to cause itself to change from a state of non-existence to a state of existence

I replied...

Originally Posted by hcap

Must I tell you again about the uncertainty principle and how it allows virtual particles to pop in and out of existence?And once again about the Casimir effect, a small attractive force that acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. It is due to quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. The effect was predicted by the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in 1948.

The quantum level seems to contradict much of your 17th century science.
Ever wonder why?

Your distraction over to the "realms" of scripture may be meaningful to you but not anyone else. Obviously the "realms" I refereed to in the ensuing conversation were 3 realms of scale. The very small, the very large and more importantly the realm you project FROM, and aim to describe every thing FROM, the local human size scale.

So, based on the what the Casimer effect demonstrates,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space, as allowed by the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle states that for a pair of conjugate variables such as position/momentum or energy/time, it is impossible to have a precisely determined value of each member of the pair at the same time. For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum during a very short time interval.

The quantum level scale is contrary to your human local scale law of non-contradiction

Btw, wghen I said you omitted something from the classical law of non-contradiction, I was giving you the backgroud of it's development and significantly correcting your "thing" definition
to include actions as well as things