Do you "Believe In" ...

[PureX]

What I'm actually thinking of is the Law of Non-contradiction. A thing cannot be both a and not-a in the same way at the same time.

There is no "law of non-contradiction". We are limited beings living in a universe that is far greater in depth and scope than we can know., so contradiction and paradox are inevitable.

That's a basic tenet of reason that we can't deny if we want to have any kind of coherent train of thought. So I hope we both agree to it.

That's an archaic axiom that lost it's validity centuries ago (during the enlightenment). We now understand that for we humans, perception depends on perspective, and thus, truth is relative.

So the Earth cannot be both flat and not-flat.

It can and it is, as well as being a designated phenomenological event in space.

Nor does a change in our opinion change the fact of the matter. When you say it "became untrue" that the Earth is flat at some point, you're speaking as though our opinions change how things actually are outside of our heads.

You don't understand that "outside our heads" everything is everything. It's all one really big, really complex event taking place. There is no 'this and that' until we perceive them as separate phenomena and give them different names. The Earth was flat when we perceived and experienced it as flat. The Earth became round when we perceived and experienced it as round. And it will become a designated phenomenological event floating in space when we perceive and experience it as such. The Earth is what it is. It has not changed, significantly. And yet the "truth of the Earth" as we perceive it has changed dramatically. And will likely continue to change dramatically, and even contradictively.

And I'm sorry, but that's simply not the case. We didn't change the shape of the Earth with our thoughts. What happened was, we gained new information which revealed to us that our prior understanding of reality was incomplete and inaccurate.

It's always going to be incomplete and inaccurate.

And I completely agree that our understanding of reality is basically one that is functional. But the point is that we are ultimately interested (or at least, I am, and I think most others are too) in understanding how things really are as best we can. And that's what people generally mean when they say they "believe in x." They mean that they think x is how things really are.

How they "really are" is complex beyond our comprehension. And therefor sometimes innately contradictory, and inexplicable,

 

[Left Coast]

There is no "law of non-contradiction". We are limited beings living in a universe that is far greater in depth and scope than we can know., so contradiction and paradox are inevitable.
That's an archaic axiom that lost it's validity centuries ago (during the enlightenment). We now understand that for we humans, perception depends on perspective, and thus, truth is relative.
It can and it is, as well as being a designated phenomenological event in space.

If you deny the Law of Non-Contradiction, the game is over. If you genuinely don't agree with the fundamental concept in logic that a thing can't be A in the same way and at the same time as not-A, then there's no constructive conversation to be had. Your worldview, including the one you're trying to argue for here, collapses into incoherence.

Dud7wf2ks8duw odd82bw8zh 28$^×>× 8+,€~《\£▪︎€ aaidgdvd. 2ud7xy2b2iz&@*['9wb8€~ 2idy!

 

[PureX]

Yes, I do think that there is a distinct difference between accepting an idea as a concept and having a belief that a concept exist in reality that any reasonable person can recognize.

Sure, the latter is a biased presumption of truth.

Can you provide an example in which two reasonable people would not recognize a difference between being familiar with a concept and having a belief that this concept exists in reality?

Yes, this happens all the time with the concept called "God".

And I really don't understand why you see a difference between discussing unicorns or god. In both cases you define what you mean by the concept and decide from there whether or not you have sufficient reason to believe that the concept exists in reality.

They are vastly different concepts with vastly different experiential realities.

 

[PureX]

If you deny the Law of Non-Contradiction, the game is over. If you genuinely don't agree with the fundamental concept in logic that a thing can't be A in the same way and at the same time as not-A, then there's no constructive conversation to be had. Your worldview, including the one you're trying to argue for here, collapses into incoherence.

Through the Doppler effect, a train whistle being heard by person A and the same train whistle being heard by person B are actually perceived and mechanically recorded by each as being two different train whistles making two different sounds. This is a simple example of relative contradiction. The train whistle IS only making one sound, and yet it IS also making many different sounds simultaneously, depending on from where the sound is being heard.

There is no law of non-contradiction, anymore.

 

[Left Coast]

Through the Doppler effect, a train whistle being heard by person A and the same train whistle being heard by person B are actually perceived and mechanically recorded by each as being two different train whistles making two different sounds. This is a simple example of relative contradiction. The train whistle IS only making one sound, and yet it IS also making many different sounds simultaneously, depending on from where the sound is being heard.

There is no law of non-contradiction, anymore.

False. You are simply misunderstanding. The two different people in two different places are not hearing the single sound in the same way at the same time. Thus, their reporting relatively disparate accounts of the sound is expected and does not violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.

The LNC is a basic principle of reason. It is necessary for any of the words in your post to cohere.

Again, if you don't acknowledge this, there's no way to move forward constructively in the conversation. Your position becomes incoherent the minute you try to string together letters into words.

 

[Koldo]

We see this question being asked of us here on RF all the time. And yet it's still so vague that I have no idea how to answer it. What does it mean to "believe in" something? Do I believe it exists? Exists, how? All kinds of things exist in all kinds of ways. Yet all the variations are being ignored by this question.

I believe unicorns exist as characters in lots of different kinds of literature. Yet I don't believe they exist in the woods near my house. In fact, I don't think they exist as biological life forms anywhere on Earth. Though the Earth is a big place, with a few still unexplored nooks and crannies. So I suppose it's still technically possible. I do believe they exist as depicted, because I've seen some of the depictions, myself. And they all seem to pretty much agree on how they look. But that doesn't mean I've ever actually seen one, to know.

By now I think you can see what I'm getting at. The question of "believing in" or "not believing in" something is absurdly vague. And because it's so absurdly vague, the answers become absurdly pointless without some sort of extra explanation; rarely present.

I don't see how the question is vague though...
Context is key here. Those questions are always asked from a philosophical realism point of view, unless otherwise specified.

 

[PureX]

False. You are simply misunderstanding. The two different people in two different places are not hearing the single sound in the same way at the same time.

Yes, they are. Same horn, same time, same ears. The horn broadcasts one sound, Yet an infinite number of different sounds are received at infinite positions within it's range.

Relativity creates this contradiction, and many, many others.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, they are. Same horn, same time, same ears.

LOL no.

Two different people, with two different sets of ears, at two different places and times.

The horn broadcasts one sound, Yet an infinite number of different sounds are received at infinite positions within it's range.

The sound can be received at infinite (ie different) positions, and changes due to dispersal of the sound wave. Ie it is not received by the ears in the same way at the same time.

So again, no refutation of LNC here.

You cannot avoid this. The meaning behind every word in your last post is dependent on this basic concept.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yes, this happens all the time with the concept called "God".
They are vastly different concepts with vastly different experiential realities.

Sure, the latter is a biased presumption of truth.

How?

Yes, this happens all the time with the concept called "God"

Then you should easily be able to provide me with an example of people confusing the concept of a god being with belief that such a god being actually exists in reality.

They are vastly different concepts with vastly different experiential realities

Yes, they are. But once each concept is fully defined the process for determining belief in the concept is exactly the same.

 

[Tambourine]

There is no "law of non-contradiction". We are limited beings living in a universe that is far greater in depth and scope than we can know., so contradiction and paradox are inevitable.

That's an archaic axiom that lost it's validity centuries ago (during the enlightenment). We now understand that for we humans, perception depends on perspective, and thus, truth is relative.

The axiom of non-contradiction doesn't mean that contradiction and paradox don't exist, it means that making a logically valid proposition cannot contradict itself without undermining the entire point of logical propositions, that is to construct coherent arguments for the purpose of reasoned analysis and debate.

You don't understand that "outside our heads" everything is everything.

If we take your own premises seriously, then you don't know that and are talking out of your donkey here. You're positing a Ding-and-sich without taking the limitations of such a concept seriously, which I suspect is why your arguments always seem to end with profound-sounding metaphysical bloviating without substance.

"Wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen."

 

[PureX]

The axiom of non-contradiction doesn't mean that contradiction and paradox don't exist, it means that making a logically valid proposition cannot contradict itself without undermining the entire point of logical propositions, that is to construct coherent arguments for the purpose of reasoned analysis and debate.

And it's nonsense.

 

[Tambourine]

And it's nonsense.

You mean it is, and isn't, nonsense at the same time, both simultaneously and not.

 

[PureX]

You mean it is, and isn't, nonsense at the same time, both simultaneously and not.

Which is why it's nonsense.

 

[Left Coast]

Which is why it's nonsense.

Please...please just stop. You're genuinely confused. I don't think you realize what a basic error you're making.

 

[PureX]

Please...please just stop. You're genuinely confused. I don't think you realize what a basic error you're making.

I don't think you have any idea why I'm posting what I'm posting, and why this foolishness about a "law of non-contradiction" is nothing more than archaic egotism. The presumption of a fixed, logical, discoverable existence has long since been dispelled. Post-modern philosophy has long since embraced the relativity of truth and of reasoning from the human perspective. And all this silly bluster and condescension to the contrary doesn't change that. Existence IS inherently contradictory through the very limited human experience and understanding we have to access it. And pretending that it's ultimately surmountable through logic and reason is not the way forward, any more. Just the opposite. We're going to have to start acknowledging the limitations of our relative perspective, and the contradictions that inevitably result from it, as our BASELINE reality.

Obviously, humanity is still struggling with this realization, and many of us are still fighting it. But that's not going to put this cognitive genie back in the bottle. Sorry, but it's just not.

 

[Starlight]

Belief in is not = i know for certain

Belief in is = to hope something is real or to know something (but not knowing it 100%, or that you can not be certain)

 

[Left Coast]

I don't think you have any idea why I'm posting what I'm posting, and why this foolishness about a "law of non-contradiction" is nothing more than archaic egotism. The presumption of a fixed, logical, discoverable existence has long since been dispelled. Post-modern philosophy has long since embraced the relativity of truth and of reasoning from the human perspective. And all this silly bluster and condescension to the contrary doesn't change that. Existence IS inherently contradictory through the very limited human experience and understanding we have to access it. And pretending that it's ultimately surmountable through logic and reason is not the way forward, any more. Just the opposite. We're going to have to start acknowledging the limitations of our relative perspective, and the contradictions that inevitably result from it, as our BASELINE reality.

Obviously, humanity is still struggling with this realization, and many of us are still fighting it. But that's not going to put this cognitive genie back in the bottle. Sorry, but it's just not.

Acknowledging the limitations of our knowledge is fine. There's lots we don't know. That really has nothing to do with the LNC. Literally every word you just typed depends on the LNC to convey what you intend. Postmodernism did not upend the LNC.

Your position is literally self-defeating here.

 

[PureX]

Acknowledging the limitations of our knowledge is fine. There's lots we don't know. That really has nothing to do with the LNC. Literally every word you just typed depends on the LNC to convey what you intend. Postmodernism did not upend the LNC.

Your position is literally self-defeating here.

I think you have a very small and narrow interpretation of the LNC. If all you think it's about is keeping language logical, then fine. I'm all for that. But in terms of logical debate, as in a philosophical context, paradox and contradiction are now inevitable aspects of our attempts at grasping truth. These "alternative realities" are not going to be resolved by ignoring them, and pretending there must be one 'true' answer. Post-modern relativism is probably the greatest philosophical problem humanity has faced in many millennia. And maybe, EVER. It's been coming upon us for several centuries and we've been struggling with it. The more we come in contact with each other, the more relativistic (contradicting) we are seeing "truth and reality" become.

 

[Tambourine]

I don't think you have any idea why I'm posting what I'm posting

I don't think anybody does, honestly, including yourself.

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't think you have any idea why I'm posting what I'm posting, and why this foolishness about a "law of non-contradiction" is nothing more than archaic egotism.

If you don't exclude logical contradictions, then you can, quite literally, logically prove anything at all - including that you are wrong to assert that there are contradictions or that we don't need the rule.

The presumption of a fixed, logical, discoverable existence has long since been dispelled. Post-modern philosophy has long since embraced the relativity of truth and of reasoning from the human perspective.

Nonsense - it's still the underlying assumption of practical science. One school of philosophy hasn't dispelled anything.