|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 19:53:11 GMT
If everything is a contradiction then this truth is not contradictory and a contradiction ensues because not everything is a contradiction, this is a further contradiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 4, 2022 20:36:30 GMT
If everything is contradiction, then it cannot be truth. This claim is false.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 20:42:50 GMT
If everything is contradiction, then it cannot be truth. This claim is false. Yet falsities exist and because they exist they are truths. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 4, 2022 21:12:49 GMT
If everything is contradiction, then it cannot be truth. This claim is false. Yet falsities exist and because they exist they are truths. Not exactly. We put a set of certain facts as 'true', some as 'false'. If a certain fact is not 'true', it's then 'false'. It's the same as if there are only two barrels A and B, and if a certain fish isn't in A, then it is in B. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 21:18:45 GMT
Yet falsities exist and because they exist they are truths. Not exactly. We put a set of certain facts as 'true', some as 'false'. If a certain fact is not 'true', it's then 'false'. It's the same as if there are only two barrels A and B, and if a certain fish isn't in A, then it is in B. False is the absence of a thing under a certain context, this absence is a limit and as a limit necessitates a value of truth (ie what it is not is a limit to that which it is). |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 6, 2022 14:51:02 GMT
Not exactly. We put a set of certain facts as 'true', some as 'false'. If a certain fact is not 'true', it's then 'false'. It's the same as if there are only two barrels A and B, and if a certain fish isn't in A, then it is in B. False is the absence of a thing under a certain context, this absence is a limit and as a limit necessitates a value of truth (ie what it is not is a limit to that which it is). It's an interesting point with those limits, but I can't say I got your point. In Predicate Logic the abscence can be accepted as falsely, but not in each case. Since I didn't know what did you lead to, but not always 'false' is abscence. Let's say Px = "x is pure", then if there are no such x which is pure, then Px is for certain is false. However, what Px reported us? Nothing. If we use quantifiers it may turn into (x)Px which means "for all x, x is pure". But of course it's wrong, because we know that for some things it is possible to not be pure. Until x is not restricted, x means any thing. Then (x)Px is false. But! The ascence here is just an example. Let's take a formula (x)Px & ~(x)Px which means "for all x, x is pure, and at the same time not for all x, x is pure". Shorter it can be said that "all x is pure, and not all x is pure". This sounds crazy, not possible to be. Here's falsity doesn't result in any abscence, because there cannot be no such x that satisfies to (x)Px&~(x)Px. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 6, 2022 20:54:33 GMT
False is the absence of a thing under a certain context, this absence is a limit and as a limit necessitates a value of truth (ie what it is not is a limit to that which it is). It's an interesting point with those limits, but I can't say I got your point. In Predicate Logic the abscence can be accepted as falsely, but not in each case. Since I didn't know what did you lead to, but not always 'false' is abscence. Let's say Px = "x is pure", then if there are no such x which is pure, then Px is for certain is false. However, what Px reported us? Nothing. If we use quantifiers it may turn into (x)Px which means "for all x, x is pure". But of course it's wrong, because we know that for some things it is possible to not be pure. Until x is not restricted, x means any thing. Then (x)Px is false. But! The ascence here is just an example. Let's take a formula (x)Px & ~(x)Px which means "for all x, x is pure, and at the same time not for all x, x is pure". Shorter it can be said that "all x is pure, and not all x is pure". This sounds crazy, not possible to be. Here's falsity doesn't result in any abscence, because there cannot be no such x that satisfies to (x)Px&~(x)Px. Falsity is an absence of truth thus an absence. As an absence it is a negative limit, ie defining something by that which it is not (the limits of a thing). As a negative limit it is a limit thus falsity inherently exists and as existing has a truth value. |
|
