Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 25, 2021 14:41:32 GMT
Tutankhamun said once: "The truth is always the same". Logically he was right.
The law of contradiction reads:
p⊃q.⊃:p⊃~q.⊃.~p:,
i.e. if something implies two /or more/ different claims – as such among of them there's a claim and its opposition – then the main thesis must be changed to its opposition.
The law of contradiction reads:
p⊃q.⊃:p⊃~q.⊃.~p:,
i.e. if something implies two /or more/ different claims – as such among of them there's a claim and its opposition – then the main thesis must be changed to its opposition.
Summary, If there's the truth, there must be only one truth.
What if there are more than one truth? Considering the law it means that all such truths which are non-contradictions /to each other/ has nothing that is able to divide the rest /of the truths/ into a certain number of oppositions.
In other words, if there are many non-contradictions, either they have no categorical partitions /to the oppositions/, or we're unable to pick up the center or the main one claim:
p⊃q.⊃:p⊃r.::p⊃.qvr::,
We can add as many truths as possible to derive them from p, however, it won't help us to make a claim, except for to count all the derivative truths.
And this is not the only one reason why the last plural way isn't possible to use, there is the more serious problem that is: not knowing the central claim /the measure or the arrangement/ we are unable to understand any derivative truths at all.
Indeed, if I have a number of things inside a box not having a chance to differ them /one from another/ or to get a size to compare them, I do not know anything even a number of them; hence, for me neither all of them are similar, nor of them are different; that is in turn means: if the first formulation works, therefore the main idea implies its opposition.
What if there are more than one truth? Considering the law it means that all such truths which are non-contradictions /to each other/ has nothing that is able to divide the rest /of the truths/ into a certain number of oppositions.
In other words, if there are many non-contradictions, either they have no categorical partitions /to the oppositions/, or we're unable to pick up the center or the main one claim:
p⊃q.⊃:p⊃r.::p⊃.qvr::,
We can add as many truths as possible to derive them from p, however, it won't help us to make a claim, except for to count all the derivative truths.
And this is not the only one reason why the last plural way isn't possible to use, there is the more serious problem that is: not knowing the central claim /the measure or the arrangement/ we are unable to understand any derivative truths at all.
Indeed, if I have a number of things inside a box not having a chance to differ them /one from another/ or to get a size to compare them, I do not know anything even a number of them; hence, for me neither all of them are similar, nor of them are different; that is in turn means: if the first formulation works, therefore the main idea implies its opposition.