"Something can't be both true and false in the same area"

[PoetPhilosopher]

@It Aint Necessarily So said in another thread that something can't be both true and false in the same sense at the same time.

In simplest terms, it seems that way. But then we get into quantum mechanics:

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

 

[MikeF]

@It Aint Necessarily So said in another thread that something can't be both true and false in the same area.

In simplest terms, it seems that way. But then we get into quantum mechanics:

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

I'm not a Physicist, but Schrödinger starts out the thought experiment with "One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. ..". In other words, the cat is not both alive and dead at the same time.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm not a Physicist, but Schrödinger starts out the thought experiment with "One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. ..". In other words, the cat is not both alive and dead at the same time.

I don't think we know for sure:

Reimagining of Schrödinger’s cat breaks quantum mechanics — and stumps physicists

 

[ChristineM]

@It Aint Necessarily So said in another thread that something can't be both true and false in the same sense at the same time.

In simplest terms, it seems that way. But then we get into quantum mechanics:

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

The Schrödingers cat thought experiment is to show you cannot know until you look. I.e observation collapses the wave.

However.

 

[MikeF]

I don't think we know for sure:

Reimagining of Schrödinger’s cat breaks quantum mechanics — and stumps physicists

I don't think we know for sure:

Reimagining of Schrödinger’s cat breaks quantum mechanics — and stumps physicists

The uncertainty is in our understanding of Quantum Mechanics, not the life status of the cat. That is my take-away from your links.

 

[ChristineM]

And what happens if the cat gets fed up and runs away while no one is looking?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

And what happens if the cat gets fed up and runs away while no one is looking?

With the plates? I can see that happening.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@It Aint Necessarily So said in another thread that something can't be both true and false in the same sense at the same time. In simplest terms, it seems that way. But then we get into quantum mechanics: Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

I presume you offer that as a counterexample. If so, you should be able to make a statement - write out an actual sentence or paragraph - that is both true and untrue in the same sense at the same time. Let's try a few:

• The cat is dead. If the cat is dead, it is not alive. Only one of those can be true at a time.
• The cat is alive. Same answer.
• The cat is both dead and alive. If the cat is both dead and alive, it is not just one or neither. But notice that these words are being used differently than earlier. This "live" cat won't meow.
• The cat is neither dead nor alive. Same answer.

You can say that in a sense, the cat is both dead and alive and neither dead nor alive, but those are different senses of what dead (and alive) mean - potentially dead versus actually dead, in a superimposed state or a collapsed probability wave state.

Consider @ChristineM 's picture of the plates. There's a sense in which the plates are both broken and intact, but in another sense, they are only intact, soon to be broken. Potentially broken is not actually broken.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I presume you offer that as a counterexample. If so, you should be able to make a statement - write out an actual sentence or paragraph - that is both true and untrue in the same sense at the same time.

My best statement would be, I look at an accurate depiction of the sky, and name a specific color of blue and say it is that.

It is true to me that it is that color of blue.

But different people may see a different shade of blue.

But I reckon other people will have a solution to that. I'm just wondering what it is.

 

[ChristineM]

My best statement would be, I look at an accurate depiction of the sky, and name a specific color of blue and say it is that.

It is true to me that it is that color of blue.

But different people may see a different shade of blue.

But I reckon other people will have a solution to that. I'm just wondering what it is.

In ancient greece, as mentioned in the Iliad, the sky was bronze

 

[Valjean]

And what happens if the cat gets fed up and runs away while no one is looking?

The box is locked.

 

[Valjean]

From a Vedantic perspective, there is a hierarchy of realities, and truth varies at different perceived levels. Most levels are subjective, and subjectively real. Each "higher" level (above 3rd-state) becomes more and more congruent with modern theoretical physics, and less comprehensible and commonsense -- yet more 'really Real' -- from our current perspective.

 

[ChristineM]

The box is locked.

Never usually stops a cat ;-)

 

[Mock Turtle]

 

[Shaul]

The premise assumes truth and falsehood are binary. That may or may not be true. But there certainly are things which are partially true and false. As in the arena of fuzzy logic.

 

[syo]

something can't be both true and false in the same sense at the same time.

Wrong.

 

[Onasander]

From a Vedantic perspective, there is a hierarchy of realities, and truth varies at different perceived levels. Most levels are subjective, and subjectively real. Each "higher" level (above 3rd-state) becomes more and more congruent with modern theoretical physics, and less comprehensible and commonsense -- yet more 'really Real' -- from our current perspective.

Do you know of a translated text doing this? I've exhausted Aristotle's Square and Dignaga's Wheel. Closest I've seen to this is in The Uddhava/Hamsa Gita with its table of dualities, but a dialectic hierarchy wasn't present. Rest of the texts I've touched on early predicate logic just talk about three qualities of things.

 

[Onasander]

I presume you offer that as a counterexample. If so, you should be able to make a statement - write out an actual sentence or paragraph - that is both true and untrue in the same sense at the same time. Let's try a few:

• The cat is dead. If the cat is dead, it is not alive. Only one of those can be true at a time.
• The cat is alive. Same answer.
• The cat is both dead and alive. If the cat is both dead and alive, it is not just one or neither. But notice that these words are being used differently than earlier. This "live" cat won't meow.
• The cat is neither dead nor alive. Same answer.

You can say that in a sense, the cat is both dead and alive and neither dead nor alive, but those are different senses of what dead (and alive) mean - potentially dead versus actually dead, in a superimposed state or a collapsed probability wave state.

Consider @ChristineM 's picture of the plates. There's a sense in which the plates are both broken and intact, but in another sense, they are only intact, soon to be broken. Potentially broken is not actually broken.

If I recall correctly from Aristotle and his Square of Opposition, the statements of what is and isn't only applies to what can be discussed. Jain logic takes off from this in systematically denouncing claims of affirmation by inability to observe to skepticism at every assertion similar to Pyrrhonism but more condensed and systematic (which is a bit weird as Pyrrhonism supposedly is a Buddhist derived school imported to Antioch).

I've always assumed some Indo-Greek armed with Aristotle was debating a Jain, and the Jain started trolling. I laugh every time I think of it.

The problem with the cat in the box isn't the existence of the statehood of the cat dead or alive, but the prerequisite knowledge of its state via the senses or other means of knowing (being told, or knowing culturally the box is a coffin). Since the ambiguity exists the phrasing can't be assuredly done, as Aristotle relied on known conversational statements. You already know what a thing is, so you can therefore determine relational aspects to other things. 100% of gold is not 0.01% silver. A dead cat is not a alive cat. Jain logic is perfectly complimentary to aristotle's in this area.

 

[ChristineM]

@It Aint Necessarily So said in another thread that something can't be both true and false in the same sense at the same time.

In simplest terms, it seems that way. But then we get into quantum mechanics:

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

And fuzzy logic.