The Black Vault

Can you prove that reality is free of contradictions, khan, or that logic applies to everything? In essence you can't prove the laws of thought, meaning something can be a square and a circle. Of course, language breaks down and everything is both true and false (If everything is true then everything is false and vice versa). Perhaps it's the dualistic nature of language that makes it break down.

at1with0 wrote:Can you prove that reality is free of contradictions, khan, or that logic applies to everything? In essence you can't prove the laws of thought, meaning something can be a square and a circle. Of course, language breaks down and everything is both true and false (If everything is true then everything is false and vice versa). Perhaps it's the dualistic nature of language that makes it break down.

Truth holds for first order logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del ... ss_theorem

A first-order formula is called logically valid if it is true in every structure for its language. The completeness theorem shows that if a formula is logically valid then there is a finite deduction (a formal proof) of the formula. The deduction is a finite object that can be verified by hand or computer. This relationship between truth and provability establishes a close link between model theory and proof theory in mathematical logic.

An important consequence of the completeness theorem is that it is possible to enumerate the logical consequences of any effective first-order theory, by enumerating all the correct deductions using axioms from the theory.

As I already said, precise definitions are specific and thus exclusive. It might help if you were to actually read my posts and not just argue with the voices in your head.

I am not arbitrarily "changing the definitions". That is your own delusion. Definitions might necessarily exclude information which allows for more inclusive and equally valid understanding. You are putting a ridiculous amount of faith into language. Language is dynamic and descriptions are not necessarily absolute. That doesn't mean it's useless, only that some referents may not be wholly describable by trivial tautologies based on categorical thinking. eg. "Circles and squares are different."

at1with0 wrote:Can you prove that reality is free of contradictions, khan, or that logic applies to everything? In essence you can't prove the laws of thought, meaning something can be a square and a circle. Of course, language breaks down and everything is both true and false (If everything is true then everything is false and vice versa). Perhaps it's the dualistic nature of language that makes it break down.

Perhaps reality is inclusive of forms of logic that are as yet undiscovered by the human mind.

DIss0n80r wrote:As I already said, precise definitions are specific and thus exclusive. It might help if you were to actually read my posts and not just argue with the voices in your head.

I am not arbitrarily "changing the definitions". That is your own delusion. Definitions might necessarily exclude information which allows for more inclusive and equally valid understanding. You are putting a ridiculous amount of faith into language. Language is dynamic and descriptions are not necessarily absolute. That doesn't mean it's useless, only that some referents may not be wholly describable by trivial tautologies based on categorical thinking. eg. "Circles and squares are different."

Ever larger frameworks are not required until deeper more inclusive truths are searched for and then it becomes a set theoretic hierarchical relationship of inclusion and exclusion. Validity is not necessarily always going in the direction of higher generalized truths but it may be more valid to specify definitions with respect to the universe in question. Squares are not circles unless you have an exception with logical definitions that are true for themselves.

Even when you have a many valued logic proof that has three different truth values, the proof itself must be either true or false.

Maybe reality is not absolutely dualistic.

DIss0n80r wrote:Maybe reality is not absolutely dualistic.

It is true that reality is absolutely dualistic

or

it is not-true that reality is absolutely dualistic

khanster wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:Maybe reality is not absolutely dualistic.

It is true that reality is absolutely dualistic

or

it is not-true that reality is absolutely dualistic

Is reality one thing or many things?

DIss0n80r wrote:

khanster wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:Maybe reality is not absolutely dualistic.

It is true that reality is absolutely dualistic

or

it is not-true that reality is absolutely dualistic

Is reality one thing or many things?

Reality is true to itself, whatever that may be.

Is reality one thing or many things?