There are two types of truths one can have, namely, the empirical and the logical (which includes all systems with their own internal rules, such as chess or math). These two types of truths are determined as true by correspondence with reality, that is, one determines their truth by whether or not they exist, or their falsehood by whether or not they do not exist. An example of each demonstrates this:

1. An Empirical Truth:

Suppose one went out with one's friend for a nice morning walk. Now further suppose that one's friend, who we shall now dub with the name of "A", met with one's other friend "B" later that day, and stated that no such thing occurred. Why is this necessarily a lie or an ignorant falsehood? Because the reality was that one did, in fact, walk with said friend, that walking with one's friend was what existed, and subsequently, its opposite does not.

2. A Logical Truth:

A square which is also a circle in the same manner and at the same time (GIGANTIC NOTE OF DOOM: THIS IS NOT CONCERNING PERSPECTIVE BUT AN ACTUAL SHAPE THAT CONTRADICTS ITSELF) is said to be an absurdity or impossibility, that is to say, it does not have existence. This is manifestly truth, as to be a square and a circle at the same time would imply a contradiction both ways and therefore it could not ever exist at any time whatsoever.

Now, the impact of this on an ontological level is such: Since all which is true exists, and all which is false does not, it can be said that existence/somethingness is truth and that non-existence/nothingness is falsehood. That the palace of truth and possibility is existence, whilst nothingness is the abode of falsehood and impossibility. This also presents another reason to suggest that existence/somethingness and nonexistence/nothingness are indeed opposites, as well as giving credence to St. Anselm's claims that existence is superior to non-existence and a perfection.

A fitting quote:

"There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies - which is exactly what I detest in this world - what I want to forget. It makes me miserable and sick, like biting into something rotten would." - The character of Marlow in Robert Conrad's "Heart of Darkness".

Why do you walk around in such small circles?

The large ones make my feet hurt.

try a rhumba it tends to be less circular and more a square....but you still get to go round in circles regardless. :D

eh... a square circle isn't a shape that contradicts itself... a square circle is a set of words that do not convey any sort of meaning.

It isn't a shape that has no existence, it's a set of words that are not attached to any kind of meaning.

eh... a square circle isn't a shape that contradicts itself... a square circle is a set of words that do not convey any sort of meaning.

It isn't a shape that has no existence, it's a set of words that are not attached to any kind of meaning.

Question is: Can we say something meaningless?
Problem is: We can't prevent meaning to emerge.

Yes, we can say something is meaningless. Meaning pertains to idea. Ideas concern information. Information is grounded in reality, both possible and actual. If words neither pertain to actual reality, nor possible reality, then they convey no information. If they convey no information, then no idea is formulation. Where there is no idea, there can be no meaning.

Meaning may emerge, IF variables are added, in which case, the original set of words is incomplete, thus we are actually talking about a completely different set of words.

beyondtimeandspace:

It isn't a shape that has no existence, it's a set of words that are not attached to any kind of meaning.

If it has no meaning, what existence does it have?

If words neither pertain to actual reality, nor possible reality, then they convey no information.

So you could say they convey nothing, yes?

beyondtimeandspace:



If it has no meaning, what existence does it have?



It? You mean the set of words? The existence it has is either the sounds exuding from your voice box and past your lips, or the ink upon a paper, or the pixels of light emanating from your screen, or any other form that words can be written/conveyed.

BeyondTimeAndSpace:

All words stake a claim at something. When one speaks an absurdity, such as square-circle, how do we know it is absurd? It's lack of meaning is determined how?

"As Alice fell into the mirror, down down, up up, thinking about squares and circles, gently landing on a pile of broken glass where upon the rabbit said "I say what I mean and mean what I say" The cat nodded in agreement as his smile dissappeared before his body did....."

Of course just because something is an absurdity doesn't mean it has no meaning.
The term "square circle" actually has more meaning than most things. It does for one thing expose the limitations of logical visualisations. So therefore a square circle exists as a logical connundrum.

To deny it's existance it to deny the limitations of logic and the unlimited potential of imagination.

Another interesting slant is that if you spin a square on it's center fast enough it describes a circle...so in effect our square has become a circle. Or is a circle. However I would like to see how slowing a circle down can describe a square.....

So a circle could be a spinning square.....ha

Quantum Quack:

Of course just because something is an absurdity doesn't mean it has no meaning.
The term "square circle" actually has more meaning than most things. It does for one thing expose the limitations of logical visualisations. So therefore a square circle exists as a logical connundrum.

To deny it's existance it to deny the limitations of logic and the unlimited potential of imagination.

Try to imagine, my good man, a square-circle, which fits the illogical definition of such that is being used here, then speak to me about the "unlimited potential of imagination". I guarantee you you will not be able to produce such a thing, precisely because it is impossible.

Another interesting slant is that if you spin a square on it's center fast enough it describes a circle...so in effect our square has become a circle. Or is a circle. However I would like to see how slowing a circle down can describe a square.....

So a circle could be a spinning square.....ha

Must I write in capital letters everytime I discuss the Law of Non-Contradiction: NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH PERCEPTION OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT VIOLATES "IN THE SAME MANNER" OR "AT THE SAME TIME"?

Prince, of course my prior post was not a serious attack on the notions that you are postulating. Of course in a geometric sense a square circle can not exist.

However this is only because it is impossible to leave our logic trap and see it. It is our logic trap that described both a circle and a square to start with and it is that initial description that forces us in to accepting the illogicality of the two being considered in any other way.

It falls into the same category of attempting to visualise a new colour that doesn't fall within the "rainbow" of existing colours. Our dependancy on logic forces us to declare another colour as impossible. However this does not preclude other possible percievers seeing many more colours that are beyond our limited perceptions.

For example:
Most logic in use is I would describe as linea, ie...1+1=2 or variations to this simple use of logic......there is no color beyond the spectrum recorded by our science. A very basic rational and simple form of reasoning....

However have you ever heard of 3 dimensional logic where by the logic is no longer linea, and no longer reaching the standard set of expected conclusions that are generated by our limitations.

A way of decribing this form of logic is to say for example the opposite of "tall" is a cloud or the color blue.....where the relationships between things is more dimensional and not linea. [ direct]

Abstraction and asymmetrical symmetry, perfectly imperfect etc are all notions tied into 3 dimensional logic.

There are limitations to the logic you use, in that they create a barrier to greater truths. The logic of illogicality and it's necessity.
Another example is the infinite variable logic of music, which by necessity involves a reflected listener. The way music moves the listener is not able to be defined in linea terms and must allow for illogicality.

Infinitely variable logic appears to be illogical on the surface just like infinite determinism leads to freewill.

Another good example that comes close to describing the logic I am referring to is the logic one would use to solve a Rubik's cube with out using mathamatics. Visual 3 dimensional logic.

So to me when you claim the requirement of linea polarisation, small/ big, tall / short, up / down etc I see great limitations with their inherant barriers.

Relativistic logic in linea form I feel is so limiting....

The argument about a cube sphere is not just about perception.....If I see a cube and I know it is in curved space what am I actually seeing. I am seeing a cube that is actually spherical. It can not be claimed to be a just a cube nor can it be claimed to be a sphere. So if we use linea logic the solution is simply a "cube sphere"
Thus a square circle does exist.
The entire universe can be considered as a cube sphere, where flat space is actually curved. The entire universe being observed as flat and a cube when in actuallity it is spherical. So the universe is itself evidence of a square circle. [ I f you head off in a perfectly straight line you will eventually end up back where you started [ with out ever deviating from that straight line ]]
This is not mere perception it is in fact reality.

This use of logic allows for what we can not see with our logical eyes.

So to claim an objective position on the Cube in curved space one has to admit the limitations of our dependancy on linea logic. [ What you see is not always what is there!]

Another way of helping my point is if you look at the methodology of writing a trilogy [ Novel ]. In the book there may be ten of more simultaneous stories occuring. Each story crossing the path of each other story and impacting on the other stories as they do so until eventually all stories conclude in a grand finally.
Not unlike listening to some of Beethovens Symphonies or even Stravinski as the various melodies and ideas weave their way through the moment giving the work a multi dimensional effect.
So logic can be much more that linea....
Just some thoughts........

QQ,


Using Alice stories! Ha! They do make for the best arguments, often.

I here solemlny pronounce another form of argument:

ARGUMENTUM AD ALICAM ["Alicam" to be pronounced in Latin, with a [ts] for the "c"]
An argumentum ad Alicam is an argument that uses a story or an argument within that story as found in the Lewis Carroll stories about Alice, "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the looking glass".

QQ,


Using Alice stories! Ha! They do make for the best arguments, often.

I here solemlny pronounce another form of argument:

ARGUMENTUM AD ALICAM ["Alicam" to be pronounced in Latin, with a [ts] for the "c"]
An argumentum ad Alicam is an argument that uses a story or an argument within that story as found in the Lewis Carroll stories about Alice, "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the looking glass".

ha...did you also notice that the smile of the cat dis-appeared before the body did......[in the story the body disappears first leaving only the smile behind......hard to imagine a body with out the smile yes?]

But seriously it wasn't intended to be overly profound. More like a temptation to extend the realms of logic a little bit.

There was something I thought of since my last post that I think is relevant and that is to do with the transient acceptance of the illogical and how this can be huge benefit in personal growth towards a truth.

Essentially it is that by claiming something as impossible just because it is illogical forces the claimant to rely only upon the ligic he has at that time and disallows growth in logic comprehension that would allow that which was once illogical to become logical.

Sheesh!! a mouth full sorry.

I have attempted to mention this before and it was met with incredibility.

For example to say that anything that falls outside a given logical criterea is by default impossible is a statement of supreme arrogance in the veracity or completeness of that logic criterea.
It means that one must accept that logic is merely a tool of the mind and if the tools don't fit the job then better tools are required.

For example science currently is looking for some missing mass. A huge amount of mass appears to be missing from the universe. According to science it should be there. It apparently isn't but they have created virtual mass to compensate. [ dark matter ]

Now to me there is something wrong with this approach. The logic criterea is premised on current scientific acceptance of certain theories as being bullet proof. Yet the universe is telling them that they may be wrong but because the logic criterea is so firmly installed in their thinking they are willing to conjure up a possible solution to comply with that criterea with out having a hard look at how their logical premise may be flawed. Or at least they fail to allow for the fact that it may take a quantum leap in logical understanding before it is realised tha the missing mass is in fact not missing at all. This leap in logic understanding may take 100's of years to happen, but is restricted or restrained by stating that it is impossible for the mass not to be there.
So by denying that growth is needed because of the assumption of correctness actually denys growth from occuring.
So when Prince says:

Now, the impact of this on an ontological level is such: Since all which is true exists, and all which is false does not, it can be said that existence/somethingness is truth and that non-existence/nothingness is falsehood.
I see great probems with this narrow view. For starters there is more falsehood out there than truth. False hood does indeed exist in the minds of man. It has the potential to do work, cause great suffering and move people to religion etc.....much falseness and to claim it is nonexistant is absurd.

To then extend this arguement to declare nothingness as a falsehood is in my opinion fataly flawed and non-sequitar
Now it may be true that I haven't understood what is being said, as all I have are the words posted but on face value they read as they do.

Yes, we can say something is meaningless.

Saying something meaningless is different than saying something is meaningless. When we say something, it is a projection of meaning from a mind, regardless of how vague it may seem to an observer.

Meaning pertains to idea. Ideas concern information. Information is grounded in reality, both possible and actual. If words neither pertain to actual reality, nor possible reality, then they convey no information.

What they convey isn't necessarily correlated to the meaning at all, except in the observer. Meaning can only exist over time in a mind. It's always representative of information, as long as the oberver is observing.

If they convey no information, then no idea is formulation. Where there is no idea, there can be no meaning.

I think this is framed incorrectly given that your required condition: "they convey no information" is fallacious. The "meaning" of any statement heard by someone other than who uttered it, exists uniquely and independently in two different minds. A person means something when they say something, though what they say may mean nothing to you. Actually it is necessarily unique to each.

This introduces "relation" as in, "Is there a commonality between the two meanings"". As a result (IMO) "Can you relate?" becomes the dominant issue regarding the effectiveness of any attempt to communicate between sentient beings.

Everyone can relate to a scream of real terror (or a good fake). It resonates.

Meaning may emerge, IF variables are added, in which case, the original set of words is incomplete, thus we are actually talking about a completely different set of words.

In this context it would seem that there is no such thing as a "complete" set of words except in a predefined set which by the nature of time, can shrink or grow. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "the original set of words", as what it seems you are saying in my own words is "mind is forever altered in each passting moment. This doesn't jive with the last sentence because it's not a completely different set of words unless you define it that way. You'd have to assert "if it's changed, it's completely different", even though the members of the set simply evolve. You cannot have a member of outside of a set in a set. If a set of words that changes size is IMO, that is indicative that the set is evolving and should be defined more broadly like for instance: There exists a set such that at the end of time, it encompasses all the words a person ever used or concieved of; that set is called "the set of words".

*snores*

Then you can lament for lacking data.

Quantum Quack:

Prince, of course my prior post was not a serious attack on the notions that you are postulating. Of course in a geometric sense a square circle can not exist.

I know, Mr. Prod-Me-till-I-Write-a-Capital-Letter-Note. ;)

However this is only because it is impossible to leave our logic trap and see it. It is our logic trap that described both a circle and a square to start with and it is that initial description that forces us in to accepting the illogicality of the two being considered in any other way.

The notion of Square-Circle is just an excellent way to demonstrate the fundemental Law of Non-Contradiction. It is not simply a "logic trap", but reality itself.

It falls into the same category of attempting to visualise a new colour that doesn't fall within the "rainbow" of existing colours. Our dependancy on logic forces us to declare another colour as impossible. However this does not preclude other possible percievers seeing many more colours that are beyond our limited perceptions.

Our "dependancy" on logic is rooted in the fact that there can be nothing else but logic to guide us.

For example:
Most logic in use is I would describe as linea, ie...1+1=2 or variations to this simple use of logic......there is no color beyond the spectrum recorded by our science. A very basic rational and simple form of reasoning....

The problem is this: Whilst you are right that we can take some fallacious notions from empirical observation, this is only an abuse of logic and nothing more. In fact, logic would tell us that our personal limitations of sense cannot be attributed to a universal fact, and that any empirical claim, rooted in such sensory stimuli, cannot be considered logically valid for all things. Don't confuse the empirical and and the logical.

However have you ever heard of 3 dimensional logic where by the logic is no longer linea, and no longer reaching the standard set of expected conclusions that are generated by our limitations.

No.

A way of decribing this form of logic is to say for example the opposite of "tall" is a cloud or the color blue.....where the relationships between things is more dimensional and not linea. [ direct]

...And in what way is this valid? In what way is "tall" the opposite of "blue"?

Abstraction and asymmetrical symmetry, perfectly imperfect etc are all notions tied into 3 dimensional logic.

These seem absurd.

There are limitations to the logic you use, in that they create a barrier to greater truths. The logic of illogicality and it's necessity.
Another example is the infinite variable logic of music, which by necessity involves a reflected listener. The way music moves the listener is not able to be defined in linea terms and must allow for illogicality.

Not at all. Conditioning controls emotional reaction to music. There is nothing illogical about this in the least, nor can that which is illogical have any existence.

Infinitely variable logic appears to be illogical on the surface just like infinite determinism leads to freewill.

How does infinite determinism lead to freewill?

Another good example that comes close to describing the logic I am referring to is the logic one would use to solve a Rubik's cube with out using mathamatics. Visual 3 dimensional logic.

Might you elaborate?

So to me when you claim the requirement of linea polarisation, small/ big, tall / short, up / down etc I see great limitations with their inherant barriers.

Relativistic logic in linea form I feel is so limiting....

Perhaps we exist in a limiting reality.

The argument about a cube sphere is not just about perception.....If I see a cube and I know it is in curved space what am I actually seeing. I am seeing a cube that is actually spherical. It can not be claimed to be a just a cube nor can it be claimed to be a sphere. So if we use linea logic the solution is simply a "cube sphere"

It is not, in the same manner, a sphere and cube. Again: Perception!

Here is a circle-square must be in order to be a circle-square, and as always, must have each in the same manner and at the same time:

It must have four corners.
Each side must be equal to the other.
Opposite sides must be parrallel to their opposite.
All sides must be joined at right angles to their connecting sides.
There must be no corners.
There can be no sides, just a line curved line coming back onto itself
Each point must be equidistant to the centre.

Curved space would not change the impossibility of this as regards a similar situation of a cube-sphere. It changes the "same manner".

The entire universe can be considered as a cube sphere, where flat space is actually curved. The entire universe being observed as flat and a cube when in actuallity it is spherical. So the universe is itself evidence of a square circle. [ I f you head off in a perfectly straight line you will eventually end up back where you started [ with out ever deviating from that straight line ]]
This is not mere perception it is in fact reality.

Not yet verified, nor likely to ever be. Current mainstream science proposes a universe that has not looped around itself.

This use of logic allows for what we can not see with our logical eyes.

So to claim an objective position on the Cube in curved space one has to admit the limitations of our dependancy on linea logic. [ What you see is not always what is there!]

See above. This is all rooted in -perception-, and not a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. It is a strawman attack based on warping the question at hand. NOt to mention the fact that if we allow for warped space to be taken into consideration for the cube, we must allow the sphere to similarly be warped, which would necessarily impose a different shape as the sphere.

Another way of helping my point is if you look at the methodology of writing a trilogy [ Novel ]. In the book there may be ten of more simultaneous stories occuring. Each story crossing the path of each other story and impacting on the other stories as they do so until eventually all stories conclude in a grand finally.
Not unlike listening to some of Beethovens Symphonies or even Stravinski as the various melodies and ideas weave their way through the moment giving the work a multi dimensional effect.
So logic can be much more that linea....
Just some thoughts........

Multiple influences do not prove "3d logic".

For example to say that anything that falls outside a given logical criterea is by default impossible is a statement of supreme arrogance in the veracity or completeness of that logic criterea.
It means that one must accept that logic is merely a tool of the mind and if the tools don't fit the job then better tools are required.

Arrogance? No. Not arrogant at all to point out what is necessarily true. Logic refutes those who try to destroy it by being unassailable precisely because it is real. Logic is no mere "tool of the mind", but the fundemental principle that governs reality.

One cannot even even attack the Law of Non-Contradiction, because to attack it implies that it is not consistant, and consistancy is what the Law of Non-Contradiction speaks of.

Now to me there is something wrong with this approach. The logic criterea is premised on current scientific acceptance of certain theories as being bullet proof. Yet the universe is telling them that they may be wrong but because the logic criterea is so firmly installed in their thinking they are willing to conjure up a possible solution to comply with that criterea with out having a hard look at how their logical premise may be flawed. Or at least they fail to allow for the fact that it may take a quantum leap in logical understanding before it is realised tha the missing mass is in fact not missing at all. This leap in logic understanding may take 100's of years to happen, but is restricted or restrained by stating that it is impossible for the mass not to be there.

My good man! Please stop confusing EMPIRICAL STUDIES with LOGICAL ONES! They are not the same! The follies of science are not the follies of logic, but the follies of science!

I see great probems with this narrow view. For starters there is more falsehood out there than truth. False hood does indeed exist in the minds of man. It has the potential to do work, cause great suffering and move people to religion etc.....much falseness and to claim it is nonexistant is absurd.

The claims of falsehood are false precisely because they are not in accords with what exists. The falsehood exists as -ignorant presumption-, which, in actuality, is nothing.

See my initial argument for in what way falsehood does not exist.

Perhaps this thread would have not have digressed digressed from the originator's intent if it had been expressed differently. consider the following two statement.I took a walk with my friend this morning.


I made a drawing which showed was a very precise representaion of a perfect circle which had 4 square corners.The first statement could be either true or false. The second statement could only be false.

I would require evidence to decide that the first statement was false. I would require no evidence to detrmine that the second statement was false.

Prince, I would be greatly interested in your comments regards:
Essentially it is that by claiming something as impossible just because it is illogical forces the claimant to rely only upon the logic he has at that time and disallows growth in logic comprehension that would allow that which was once deemed illogical to become logical.

Apart from the obvious absurdities such as a absolute square vs absolute circle, Logic is also a just a perception is the general thrust of my point.

If I understand the meaning of the following, I consider it absurd.Essentially it is that by claiming something as impossible just because it is illogical forces the claimant to rely only upon the ligic he has at that time and disallows growth in logic comprehension that would allow that which was once illogical to become logical.A claim that we cannot rely on the laws of logic is a claim that we cannot rely on any mathematical theorems, any of the laws of physics, and/or any of the engineering marvels of the modern world.

A very complex, but flawed, proof based on logic could initially be accepted as valid and later be discredited when the flaw was discovered. This is different from the laws of logic being revised.

This is logical: if I take one aspirin, it helps to reduce pain from a headache. If I take two aspirin, it helps reduce pain from a headache a good bit more - feels like twice as much, actually. Therefore, if I take 50 aspirin, it will help to reduce pain from a headache a WHOLE LOT more. Logical, but false, since actual experience is often non-linear. Was the reasoning flawed? I don't think so - not UNTIL experience taught us something to alter our use of logic to incorporate non-linearity. Which it presumably has a more difficult time handling.

The Ontological-Epistemological Link
The onamota-pissawhat link?

If I understand the meaning of the following, I consider it absurd.A claim that we cannot rely on the laws of logic is a claim that we cannot rely on any mathematical theorems, any of the laws of physics, and/or any of the engineering marvels of the modern world.

A very complex, but flawed, proof based on logic could initially be accepted as valid and later be discredited when the flaw was discovered. This is different from the laws of logic being revised.

A classic example of what I am suggesting is the simple fact that the very existance of the universe is in it's self at this moment in our intellectual evolution illogical. According to the logic of declaring an illogicality as impossible the universe is impossible to be existant.
Fortunately the universe has no obligation to conform with our sometimes narrow logical view. If it did, it would not be a possible existance.

So what is wrong?
Is it our inadequate logic of declaring the illogical impossible or is the universe wrong for existing despite such logical impossibilities?

Just because we don't understand the logic doesn't make something illogical or impossible. It just simply means we don't understand the logic....that's all.

There are two types of truths one can have, namely, the empirical and the logical (which includes all systems with their own internal rules, such as chess or math). These two types of truths are determined as true by correspondence with reality, that is, one determines their truth by whether or not they exist, or their falsehood by whether or not they do not exist. An example of each demonstrates this:

1. An Empirical Truth:

Suppose one went out with one's friend for a nice morning walk. Now further suppose that one's friend, who we shall now dub with the name of "A", met with one's other friend "B" later that day, and stated that no such thing occurred. Why is this necessarily a lie or an ignorant falsehood? Because the reality was that one did, in fact, walk with said friend, that walking with one's friend was what existed, and subsequently, its opposite does not.

2. A Logical Truth:

A square which is also a circle in the same manner and at the same time (GIGANTIC NOTE OF DOOM: THIS IS NOT CONCERNING PERSPECTIVE BUT AN ACTUAL SHAPE THAT CONTRADICTS ITSELF) is said to be an absurdity or impossibility, that is to say, it does not have existence. This is manifestly truth, as to be a square and a circle at the same time would imply a contradiction both ways and therefore it could not ever exist at any time whatsoever.

Now, the impact of this on an ontological level is such: Since all which is true exists, and all which is false does not, it can be said that existence/somethingness is truth and that non-existence/nothingness is falsehood. That the palace of truth and possibility is existence, whilst nothingness is the abode of falsehood and impossibility. This also presents another reason to suggest that existence/somethingness and nonexistence/nothingness are indeed opposites, as well as giving credence to St. Anselm's claims that existence is superior to non-existence and a perfection.

A fitting quote:

"There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies - which is exactly what I detest in this world - what I want to forget. It makes me miserable and sick, like biting into something rotten would." - The character of Marlow in Robert Conrad's "Heart of Darkness".But many squares can make a circle (though not a perfect one), the computer depends on this (or at least computer graphics)....

Quantum Quack: You are missing the point of this thread. We are not discussing physics. This thread is about logic.

Dinosaur:

I would require evidence to decide that the first statement was false. I would require no evidence to detrmine that the second statement was false.

This is another great point, yes. Logical proofs require no more proof than what is found in the statement.

Quantum Quack:

“ Essentially it is that by claiming something as impossible just because it is illogical forces the claimant to rely only upon the logic he has at that time and disallows growth in logic comprehension that would allow that which was once deemed illogical to become logical. ”

This is only applicable to empirical things and the logical connections we make. Necessarily impossible things, those which violate the laws of logic, are fine to reject outright.

Apart from the obvious absurdities such as a absolute square vs absolute circle, Logic is also a just a perception is the general thrust of my point.

In what way are "absolute squares" and "absolute circle" absurdities? They may not exist in real life, but they are valid mental abstractions to deal with. Here's a more "down to Earth" non-contradiction issue: A horse cannot be, at the same time and in the same manner, a banana tree.


Dinosaur:

A claim that we cannot rely on the laws of logic is a claim that we cannot rely on any mathematical theorems, any of the laws of physics, and/or any of the engineering marvels of the modern world.

A very complex, but flawed, proof based on logic could initially be accepted as valid and later be discredited when the flaw was discovered. This is different from the laws of logic being revised.

Excellent post.

Onefinity:

This is logical: if I take one aspirin, it helps to reduce pain from a headache. If I take two aspirin, it helps reduce pain from a headache a good bit more - feels like twice as much, actually. Therefore, if I take 50 aspirin, it will help to reduce pain from a headache a WHOLE LOT more. Logical, but false, since actual experience is often non-linear. Was the reasoning flawed? I don't think so - not UNTIL experience taught us something to alter our use of logic to incorporate non-linearity. Which it presumably has a more difficult time handling.

1. Empirical matter.

2. Technically, 50 aspirin -do- work 50 times more powerfully than one aspirin, but the body can simply not stand such power.

Hapsburg:

Ontology - The study of being and existence.
Epistemology - The study of truth.

The Ontological-Epistemological Link - An argument presented by Prince James regarding the link with existence/non-existence (ontology) with truthhood/falsehood (epistemology).

Quantum Quack:

A classic example of what I am suggesting is the simple fact that the very existance of the universe is in it's self at this moment in our intellectual evolution illogical. According to the logic of declaring an illogicality as impossible the universe is impossible to be existant.
Fortunately the universe has no obligation to conform with our sometimes narrow logical view. If it did, it would not be a possible existance.

In what way is the universe illogical?

Cyperium:

But many squares can make a circle (though not a perfect one), the computer depends on this (or at least computer graphics)....

Not the same as what I'm speaking of.

2. Technically, 50 aspirin -do- work 50 times more powerfully than one aspirin, but the body can simply not stand such power.


But what I said was, the logic that 50 aspirin make a headache feel 50 times better would be false. Please don't confound the argument by taking it out of context.

truthhood/falsehood (epistemology).



I don't think that truthhood/falsehood is what epistemology is. I think epistemology is about how we know. And that is not the same.

I still hold that ontology is secondary to epistemology. It's a presumptuous underling.

Onefinity:

But what I said was, the logic that 50 aspirin make a headache feel 50 times better would be false. Please don't confound the argument by taking it out of context.

Technically, it does make a headache feel "50 times better", but then one dies from it. Ontop of that, this is an abuse of logic as it is an empirical matter.

Onefinity:

I don't think that truthhood/falsehood is what epistemology is. I think epistemology is about how we know. And that is not the same.

All discussions of "how we know" require a notion of truth and falsehood, do they not?

wesmorris:

I still hold that ontology is secondary to epistemology. It's a presumptuous underling.

Partially. Ontology also deals with Materialism v. Idealism v. Dualism and rightfully, epistemology requires a notion of "existence" in order to work, hence one could view epistemology as an offshoot of ontology.

First you must know of something in order to contemplate it. You cannot consider what is until you presume to know something of it.

Wesmorris:

But it must also exist before it can be known.

Yet most of what we know is niether true nor false, and yet to be determined fully.

To take a position of either rather than "don't know" forces the ultimate truth to buried in bias and preconceptions.

Quantum Quack:

If nothing else, the content of our presumptions has some foundation in reality, does it not?

Wesmorris:

But it must also exist before it can be known.

Irrelevant, as all consideration of ontology is purported in terms of knowledge.

Good thread starter Prince James. I have to say that I dislike all this square and circle nonsense: a square has ninety degree angles and a circle doesn't, making them two different objects altogether. There can never be a square circle or a circular square.

Wesmorris:

Yet all considerations of epistemology are purported in terms of existence.

Darkman:

That is exactly what I mean. The square-circle cannot exist because it is completely and utterly impossible.

Wesmorris:

Yet all considerations of epistemology are purported in terms of existence.


Oh? Since when? How so?

How do you know?

Hehe.

How was the last question above purported in terms of existence?

That either of us exists can only be explained through knowledge. That either of us knows something has little to do with whether or not we exist.

wesmorris:

Oh? Since when? How so?

How do you know?

Hehe.

How was the last question above purported in terms of existence?

The question "how do you know" requires existence of anything to have knowledge about, as well as existence of the self to contain knowledge. Without such, the question cannot even be spoken.

That either of us exists can only be explained through knowledge. That either of us knows something has little to do with whether or not we exist.

Tell me, my good man, if we did not exist, could we know a thing?

wesmorris:

The question "how do you know" requires existence of anything to have knowledge about, as well as existence of the self to contain knowledge. Without such, the question cannot even be spoken.

But if the question IS spoken, how, where or why is technically irrelevant.


Tell me, my good man, if we did not exist, could we know a thing?

Again, if you percieve the question to be asked, the question of whether or not you exist is exactly irrelevant.

Wesmorris:

But if the question IS spoken, how, where or why is technically irrelevant.

Ah, but is it? If we cannot even say that it exists, we cannot answer it, nor even say we exist to answer it. There is a presumption of existence in even considering the notion of truth and how we know things, that necessitates an ontological focus.

Again, if you percieve the question to be asked, the question of whether or not you exist is exactly irrelevant.

But I -must- exist in order to perceive.