'Unliftable Stone' Paradox - Logically flawed argument people make even today

[firedragon]

Not all logical traditions are identical; systems of logic are based on axioms which may not be universally accepted. The law of the excluded middle vs the tetralemma or catuskoti, is perhaps the best known example of contradictory laws of logic.

Catuṣkoṭi - Wikipedia

The wider point is that logic is not reality, it is a product of our human perception of reality.

Well, again, give me a law in logic that humans could break.

 

[sun rise]

Catching up on this thread:

No .. it seems to be human reasoning that is limited

Bingo.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I agree they are a product of our experience in reality. Until someone can tell me how the three basic laws of logic can be violated I will believe they do reflect reality.

Well, again, give me a law in logic that humans could break.

Classical, or Aristotelian logic is contradicted by the Tetralemma, as I have pointed out above.

In the former, either proposition A is true, or it's negation is, therefore either A or not A.

The latter is a four cornered proposition, therefore either A, or not A, or both A and not A, or neither A nor not A.

Thus the Tetralemma, which is significant in Classical Eastern and Buddhist thought, violates Aristotelian logic. Being the unconscious recipients of centuries of Classical Western thought, many of us accept the axioms of the former without challenge. We take for granted a manner of thinking which is not universal or complete.

You might wish to consider Godel's incompleteness theorem for an illustration of how, in mathematics, no set of axioms are provable within the system which they sustain.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia

 

[firedragon]

Classical, or Aristotelian logic is contradicted by the Tetralemma, as I have pointed out above.

In the former, either proposition A is true, or it's negation is, therefore either A or not A.

The latter is a four cornered proposition, therefore either A, or not A, or both A and not A, or neither A nor not A.

Thus the Tetralemma, which is significant in Classical Eastern and Buddhist thought, violates Aristotelian logic. Being the unconscious recipients of centuries of Classical Western thought, many of us accept the axioms of the former without challenge. We take for granted a manner of thinking which is not universal or complete.

You might wish to consider Godel's incompleteness theorem for an illustration of how, in mathematics, no set of axioms are provable within the system which they sustain.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia

Again, give a law of logic that humans can violate. Not theory. Give it directly. For example, "Married bachelor". The law of non-contradiction. Can a human violate it in actuality?

I am afraid of addressing your Tetralemma matter because you might just hang on to it ignoring the question I have asked 3 times now. Tetralemma does not violate a law of logic. It provides liberation from false dichotomies. And true and false scenario's like Athman in Hindu philosophy. But you must understand that it's not breaking the law of non-contradiction. It's to say that Athman is an illusion or Maya thus in subjective truth's it exists but objectively it does not. That's absolutely not breaking of a law of logic.

You have completely misunderstood it. And you are wrong to say that humans or Gods could break a law of logic. It's in all honesty nonsensical. Anything that breaks the laws of logic like the law of non-contradiction is a lie, a non-existent thing, a nothing. It's absurdity. That's why you are not answering a direct question because you cannot provide an example.

Cheers.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Classical, or Aristotelian logic is contradicted by the Tetralemma, as I have pointed out above.

In the former, either proposition A is true, or it's negation is, therefore either A or not A.

The latter is a four cornered proposition, therefore either A, or not A, or both A and not A, or neither A nor not A.

Thus the Tetralemma, which is significant in Classical Eastern and Buddhist thought, violates Aristotelian logic. Being the unconscious recipients of centuries of Classical Western thought, many of us accept the axioms of the former without challenge. We take for granted a manner of thinking which is not universal or complete.

Seems to me the tetralemma ust muddies the water of what is truth. Here is an example on this site: Tetralemma: Beyond the Binary Logic

Suppose we are considering the appearance of a mirage in the desert. To an onlooker, the mirage appears to be a pool of water, but in reality, it is an optical illusion caused by the bending of light. Using the tetralemma, we can analyze the relationship between appearance and reality by recognizing four possible truth values for the proposition “the mirage is a pool of water”:

1. True: The mirage appears to be a pool of water, and it truly is a pool of water.
2. False: The mirage appears to be a pool of water, but it is not truly a pool of water.
3. Both true and false: The mirage appears to be a pool of water, and it is both a pool of water and not a pool of water.
4. Neither true nor false: The mirage appears to be a pool of water, but it is neither a pool of water nor not a pool of water in some ultimate sense.

In this example, truth value 2 is the most commonly accepted in Aristotelian logic, but truth values 3 and 4 allow for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between appearance and reality. They recognize that appearances can be deceiving and that there may be a deeper truth beyond appearances that are not easily grasped through our senses.

What value does 3 and 4 bring to a truth claim? 3 is false and can be proven to be false. Something that appears to be so does not mean it is actually true. I care about truth and not what seems to be true.

You might wish to consider Godel's incompleteness theorem for an illustration of how, in mathematics, no set of axioms are provable within the system which they sustain.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia

I never said the three laws of logic are true. They just have not been shown to be false as far as I know.

 

[firedragon]

Classical, or Aristotelian logic is contradicted by the Tetralemma, as I have pointed out above.

In the former, either proposition A is true, or it's negation is, therefore either A or not A.

The latter is a four cornered proposition, therefore either A, or not A, or both A and not A, or neither A nor not A.

Thus the Tetralemma, which is significant in Classical Eastern and Buddhist thought, violates Aristotelian logic. Being the unconscious recipients of centuries of Classical Western thought, many of us accept the axioms of the former without challenge. We take for granted a manner of thinking which is not universal or complete.

You might wish to consider Godel's incompleteness theorem for an illustration of how, in mathematics, no set of axioms are provable within the system which they sustain.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Seems to me the tetralemma ust muddies the water of what is truth.

Most people misunderstand. Especially the guy who is proposing this. Tetralemma is not a contradiction to logic. It's nuanced.

Anyway, this has been a truly nonsensical journey. I take my leave. To understand the trilemma, just read up on the Athman or Anaththa in Hindu and Buddhist philosophy.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Most people misunderstand. Especially the guy who is proposing this. Tetralemma is not a contradiction to logic. It's nuanced.

Anyway, this has been a truly nonsensical journey. I take my leave. To understand the trilemma, just read up on the Athman or Anaththa in Hindu and Buddhist philosophy.

I gave you an example where one conclusion of tetralemma is a mirage can be both a pool of water and not a pool of water at the same time. Is that example not correct? You can say I misunderstand and walk away but that does not change the fact that the example I gave was from a site teaching what the tetralemma is and how it is used. Can you tell me how a mirage can be a pool of water and not a pool of water at the same time that makes sense?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..logic is not reality, it is a product of our human perception of reality.

hmm .. back to the argument that mathematics was invented and not discovered.

I don't believe that .. put your 'Indian logic' into a computer, and see the result.

 

[Valjean]

Couldn't one argue that a claim of an undetectable cosmic magician is nonsensical?

 

[firedragon]

I gave you an example where one conclusion of tetralemma is a mirage can be both a pool of water and not a pool of water at the same time. Is that example not correct? You can say I misunderstand and walk away but that does not change the fact that the example I gave was from a site teaching what the tetralemma is and how it is used. Can you tell me how a mirage can be a pool of water and not a pool of water at the same time that makes sense?

As I explained, an illusion which dilutes subjective and objective truths does not violate a law of logic. What ever example you give will not. Do you wish me say that again?

AN illusion like a mirage is not objective truth, it's only an illusion. It does not violate any law in logic.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Seems to me the tetralemma ust muddies the water of what is truth. Here is an example on this site: Tetralemma: Beyond the Binary Logic

Suppose we are considering the appearance of a mirage in the desert. To an onlooker, the mirage appears to be a pool of water, but in reality, it is an optical illusion caused by the bending of light. Using the tetralemma, we can analyze the relationship between appearance and reality by recognizing four possible truth values for the proposition “the mirage is a pool of water”:

1. True: The mirage appears to be a pool of water, and it truly is a pool of water.
2. False: The mirage appears to be a pool of water, but it is not truly a pool of water.
3. Both true and false: The mirage appears to be a pool of water, and it is both a pool of water and not a pool of water.
4. Neither true nor false: The mirage appears to be a pool of water, but it is neither a pool of water nor not a pool of water in some ultimate sense.

In this example, truth value 2 is the most commonly accepted in Aristotelian logic, but truth values 3 and 4 allow for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between appearance and reality. They recognize that appearances can be deceiving and that there may be a deeper truth beyond appearances that are not easily grasped through our senses.

What value does 3 and 4 bring to a truth claim? 3 is false and can be proven to be false. Something that appears to be so does not mean it is actually true. I care about truth and not what seems to be true.


I never said the three laws of logic are true. They just have not been shown to be false as far as I know.

hmm .. back to the argument that mathematics was invented and not discovered.

I don't believe that .. put your 'Indian logic' into a computer, and see the result.

Real world examples of phenomena which appear to justify the seeming contradiction inherent in the Tetralemma, arise in Quantum Mechanics. The quantum superposition of sub-atomic particles is a paradox Erwin Schrodinger famously identified, via the Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment.

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

It appears that, at the fundamental level, nature herself violates binary logic.

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia

And yes, it would seem this does have implications for quantum computing;

Quantum computing - Wikipedia

 

[firedragon]

Real world examples of phenomena which appear to justify the seeming contradiction inherent in the Tetralemma, arise in Quantum Mechanics. The quantum superposition of sub-atomic particles is a paradox Erwin Schrodinger famously identified, via the Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment.

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

It appears that, at the fundamental level, nature herself violates binary logic.

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia

And yes, it would seem this does have implications for quantum computing;

Quantum computing - Wikipedia

Why are you avoiding the fundamental question?

Give an example of a law in logic that humans could violate. Why not provide an example rather than avoiding this simple question and preaching?

This is honestly the fourth time I ask this question.

 

[firedragon]

Couldn't one argue that a claim of an undetectable cosmic magician is nonsensical?

Well people can make cliche's like all the time if they pleases them. It's just needy and childish.

the thing is, that's not the topic. It's just a need.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why are you avoiding the fundamental question?

Give an example of a law in logic that humans could violate. Why not provide an example rather than avoiding this simple question and preaching?

This is honestly the fourth time I ask this question.

If your question continues to go unanswered, perhaps you are asking the wrong question.

 

[firedragon]

If your question continues to go unanswered, perhaps you are asking the wrong question.

How in the universe could asking for an example for your own assertion be "the wrong question"?

Mate. You cannot answer. Because you made a fallacious claim. And your understanding of your own cliche was wrong. That's the reason you have to respond this way.

 

[RestlessSoul]

How in the universe could asking for an example for your own assertion be "the wrong question"?

Mate. You cannot answer. Because you made a fallacious claim. And your understanding of your own cliche was wrong. That's the reason you have to respond this way.

Mate. You misread my original observation, which was that humans can change or replace the laws of logic. I’ve provided an illustration of that, and I’ve provided an illustration of how nature herself appears to violate the laws of Aristotelean logic.

At this juncture it is clear you are more interested in scoring points than you are in a free exchange of ideas and perspectives, which is a shame, but all too common an experience on this forum.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Real world examples of phenomena which appear to justify the seeming contradiction inherent in the Tetralemma, arise in Quantum Mechanics. The quantum superposition of sub-atomic particles is a paradox Erwin Schrodinger famously identified, via the Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment.

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

It appears that, at the fundamental level, nature herself violates binary logic.

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia

And yes, it would seem this does have implications for quantum computing;

Quantum computing - Wikipedia

This has nothing to do with logical impossibilities, and everything to do with mathematics.
..much like complex numbers .. they used to be called "imaginary numbers" ..

You talk about 'binary logic', as if it is something that is unnecessary.
It is absolutely necessary for human communication purposes.
That's all we have .. language .. the sentence.

You are trying to confuse the issue, by bringing in 'Indian logic' .. it's a different topic.
..one which originated in ancient philosophy, to attempt to explain the impossible.

In the 'tetralemma', an object can be totally red and totally green. In fact, any way you describe it, it can be contradicted.

Computers don't function like that, and neither do I.

Example: G-d exists .. G-d does not exist

Well .. which is it?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

As I explained, an illusion which dilutes subjective and objective truths does not violate a law of logic. What ever example you give will not. Do you wish me say that again?

AN illusion like a mirage is not objective truth, it's only an illusion. It does not violate any law in logic.

Ok, but the statement a mirage is a pool of water and not a pool of water at the same time does violate laws of logic.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Real world examples of phenomena which appear to justify the seeming contradiction inherent in the Tetralemma, arise in Quantum Mechanics. The quantum superposition of sub-atomic particles is a paradox Erwin Schrodinger famously identified, via the Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment.

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

It appears that, at the fundamental level, nature herself violates binary logic.

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia

And yes, it would seem this does have implications for quantum computing;

Quantum computing - Wikipedia

I am no quantum mechanics expert but many actual physicists that understand quantum mechanics say it doesn't violate the laws of noncontradiction. They say it appears so. But what does this prove anyway? The laws of logic seem to be inviolate in our everyday life.