Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Avicenna and beating and burning

tbhidc
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 11:16:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned" Avicenna's Metaphysics I.

Haha. This cracks me up.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 11:35:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 11:23:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
This sentence is false.

This seems like a contradiction because it's apparently both true and false at the same time. But since self-reference involves two levels corresponding to that which refers and that which is referred to, there is no contradiction. It is "a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically false, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically false, which, although uninformative, is at least not a paradox."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 9:35:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 11:35:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/30/2014 11:23:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
This sentence is false.

This seems like a contradiction because it's apparently both true and false at the same time. But since self-reference involves two levels corresponding to that which refers and that which is referred to, there is no contradiction.

Nonsense, the statement is circular, "that which refers" is the same as "that which is referred to", which is what makes it "self-reference", and consequently, it is a true paradox. Langan attempts to introduce a stratification that is not part of the discourse, nor is it represented in the syntax. He"s just bloviating about Russell's Type Theory and Tarski's Hierarchy of Languages, without actually understanding them, so that the galactically gullible will uncritically swallow his incessant stream of hogwash.

It is "a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically false, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically false, which, although uninformative, is at least not a paradox."

Nope, the liar"s paradox is a circular statement which does in fact introduce the self-referential paradox.

G"del"s Undecidability Theorem is a proof, and there is no explicit or implicit stratification into an object level and a proof level. Langan is simply manufacturing Russell's "types" or Tarski's "hierarchies" when they just aren"t there, apparently he doesn"t understand Type Theory any better than he understands Set Theory.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 11:40:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 9:35:38 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/30/2014 11:35:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/30/2014 11:23:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
This sentence is false.

This seems like a contradiction because it's apparently both true and false at the same time. But since self-reference involves two levels corresponding to that which refers and that which is referred to, there is no contradiction.

Nonsense, the statement is circular, "that which refers" is the same as "that which is referred to", which is what makes it "self-reference", and consequently, it is a true paradox. Langan attempts to introduce a stratification that is not part of the discourse, nor is it represented in the syntax. He"s just bloviating about Russell's Type Theory and Tarski's Hierarchy of Languages, without actually understanding them, so that the galactically gullible will uncritically swallow his incessant stream of hogwash.

It is "a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically false, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically false, which, although uninformative, is at least not a paradox."

Nope, the liar"s paradox is a circular statement which does in fact introduce the self-referential paradox.

G"del"s Undecidability Theorem is a proof, and there is no explicit or implicit stratification into an object level and a proof level. Langan is simply manufacturing Russell's "types" or Tarski's "hierarchies" when they just aren"t there, apparently he doesn"t understand Type Theory any better than he understands Set Theory.

Read the fourth bullet point: http://ctmudatabase.wikia.com....
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 11:43:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 9:35:38 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/30/2014 11:35:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/30/2014 11:23:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
This sentence is false.

This seems like a contradiction because it's apparently both true and false at the same time. But since self-reference involves two levels corresponding to that which refers and that which is referred to, there is no contradiction.

Nonsense, the statement is circular, "that which refers" is the same as "that which is referred to", which is what makes it "self-reference", and consequently, it is a true paradox. Langan attempts to introduce a stratification that is not part of the discourse, nor is it represented in the syntax. He"s just bloviating about Russell's Type Theory and Tarski's Hierarchy of Languages, without actually understanding them, so that the galactically gullible will uncritically swallow his incessant stream of hogwash.

It is "a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically false, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically false, which, although uninformative, is at least not a paradox."

Nope, the liar"s paradox is a circular statement which does in fact introduce the self-referential paradox.

G"del"s Undecidability Theorem is a proof, and there is no explicit or implicit stratification into an object level and a proof level. Langan is simply manufacturing Russell's "types" or Tarski's "hierarchies" when they just aren"t there, apparently he doesn"t understand Type Theory any better than he understands Set Theory.

This link should work: http://ctmudatabase.wikia.com....
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 11:52:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 9:35:38 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/30/2014 11:35:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/30/2014 11:23:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
This sentence is false.

This seems like a contradiction because it's apparently both true and false at the same time. But since self-reference involves two levels corresponding to that which refers and that which is referred to, there is no contradiction.

Nonsense, the statement is circular, "that which refers" is the same as "that which is referred to", which is what makes it "self-reference", and consequently, it is a true paradox. Langan attempts to introduce a stratification that is not part of the discourse, nor is it represented in the syntax. He"s just bloviating about Russell's Type Theory and Tarski's Hierarchy of Languages, without actually understanding them, so that the galactically gullible will uncritically swallow his incessant stream of hogwash.

It is "a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically false, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically false, which, although uninformative, is at least not a paradox."

Nope, the liar"s paradox is a circular statement which does in fact introduce the self-referential paradox.

G"del"s Undecidability Theorem is a proof, and there is no explicit or implicit stratification into an object level and a proof level. Langan is simply manufacturing Russell's "types" or Tarski's "hierarchies" when they just aren"t there, apparently he doesn"t understand Type Theory any better than he understands Set Theory.

Such paradoxes are properly viewed not as static objects, but as dynamic alternations associated with a metalinguistic stratification that is constructively open-ended but transfinitely closed (note that this is also how we view the universe). Otherwise, the paradox corrupts the informational boundary between true and false and thus between all logical predicates and their negations, which of course destroys all possibility of not only its cognitive resolution, but cognition and perception themselves. Yet cognition and perception exist, implying that nature contrives to resolve such paradoxes wherever they might occur. In fact, the value of such a paradox is that it demonstrates the fundamental necessity for reality to incorporate a ubiquitous relativization mechanism for its resolution, namely the aforementioned metalinguistic stratification of levels of reference (including levels of self-reference, i.e. cognition). A paradox whose definition seems to preclude such stratification is merely a self-annihilating construct that violates the "syntax" (structural and inferential rules) of reality and therefore lacks a real model.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:20:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's a contradiction by definition, Dylan. As a semantic construct it amounts to "this true thing is not a true thing". It has the same status as "this circle is a square". That Langan is psychotic enough to try and dispute this is by this point no surprise, but just further evidence that he doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:22:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Although the irony of him trying to argue that you can't say something that's nonsensical, contradictory linguistic noise does amuse me greatly.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 7:41:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:20:33 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
It's a contradiction by definition, Dylan. As a semantic construct it amounts to "this true thing is not a true thing". It has the same status as "this circle is a square". That Langan is psychotic enough to try and dispute this is by this point no surprise, but just further evidence that he doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about.

A statement can be contradictory...That's not the point. The point is that the sentence 'This sentence is false' is supposed to be actually true and false at the same time, which is a paradox.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 7:44:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:22:25 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Although the irony of him trying to argue that you can't say something that's nonsensical, contradictory linguistic noise does amuse me greatly.

That's what he was referring to when he said self-annihilating construct.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 10:44:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 7:41:49 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:20:33 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
It's a contradiction by definition, Dylan. As a semantic construct it amounts to "this true thing is not a true thing". It has the same status as "this circle is a square". That Langan is psychotic enough to try and dispute this is by this point no surprise, but just further evidence that he doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about.

A statement can be contradictory...That's not the point. The point is that the sentence 'This sentence is false' is supposed to be actually true and false at the same time, which is a paradox.

Which is a contradiction. That's what contradictions are; paradoxes. Do you seriously not know this?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 10:46:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 7:44:50 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:22:25 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Although the irony of him trying to argue that you can't say something that's nonsensical, contradictory linguistic noise does amuse me greatly.

That's what he was referring to when he said self-annihilating construct.

Or 'contradiction' as everyone who isn't a fatuous, disingenuous tw*t would call it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 10:58:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 10:44:51 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 7:41:49 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:20:33 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
It's a contradiction by definition, Dylan. As a semantic construct it amounts to "this true thing is not a true thing". It has the same status as "this circle is a square". That Langan is psychotic enough to try and dispute this is by this point no surprise, but just further evidence that he doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about.

A statement can be contradictory...That's not the point. The point is that the sentence 'This sentence is false' is supposed to be actually true and false at the same time, which is a paradox.

Which is a contradiction. That's what contradictions are; paradoxes. Do you seriously not know this?

Not necessarily. A paradox is a contradiction that seems to be true nevertheless.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 11:00:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 10:58:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Not necessarily. A paradox is a contradiction that seems to be true nevertheless.

A paradox is a contradiction; it defies the law of non-contradiction. By definition. You can't have a non-contradictory paradox.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 11:03:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 11:00:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 10:58:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Not necessarily. A paradox is a contradiction that seems to be true nevertheless.

A paradox is a contradiction; it defies the law of non-contradiction. By definition. You can't have a non-contradictory paradox.

I know that. My point is that all paradoxes are contradictory, but not all contradictions are paradoxical.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 11:20:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 11:03:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/31/2014 11:00:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 10:58:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Not necessarily. A paradox is a contradiction that seems to be true nevertheless.

A paradox is a contradiction; it defies the law of non-contradiction. By definition. You can't have a non-contradictory paradox.

I know that. My point is that all paradoxes are contradictory, but not all contradictions are paradoxical.

Untrue. Your words:

"A statement can be contradictory...That's not the point. The point is that the sentence 'This sentence is false' is supposed to be actually true and false at the same time, which is a paradox."

It is a contradiction. It is a definitional example of a contradiction. If you want to call it a paradox then it is still a contradiction.

Please give me an example of a contradiction that is not paradoxical.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 11:31:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 11:20:38 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 11:03:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/31/2014 11:00:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 10:58:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Not necessarily. A paradox is a contradiction that seems to be true nevertheless.

A paradox is a contradiction; it defies the law of non-contradiction. By definition. You can't have a non-contradictory paradox.

I know that. My point is that all paradoxes are contradictory, but not all contradictions are paradoxical.

Untrue. Your words:

"A statement can be contradictory...That's not the point. The point is that the sentence 'This sentence is false' is supposed to be actually true and false at the same time, which is a paradox."

It is a contradiction. It is a definitional example of a contradiction. If you want to call it a paradox then it is still a contradiction.

Please give me an example of a contradiction that is not paradoxical.

The difference between the two is this:
A paradox is something which seems to be true yet false (which is a contradiction).
A contradiction is something which defeats itself and is therefore false.
So a paradox is essentially something which resembles a "real contradiction".

Why does this matter? Because you said "It's a contradiction by definition, Dylan. As a semantic construct it amounts to "this true thing is not a true thing". I never claimed that it wasn't a contradiction, just that the contradiction is either unreal or is actively resolved by reality and is therefore not a contradiction. I was resolving the paradox.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 11:36:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 11:31:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The difference between the two is this:
A paradox is something which seems to be true yet false (which is a contradiction).
A contradiction is something which defeats itself and is therefore false.
So a paradox is essentially something which resembles a "real contradiction".

A contradiction is either a 'real' one or it is not a contradiction. You cannot have 'unreal' contradictions. This is absurd semantic onanism and I can only assume you got it from Langan.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 11:39:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 11:36:46 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 11:31:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The difference between the two is this:
A paradox is something which seems to be true yet false (which is a contradiction).
A contradiction is something which defeats itself and is therefore false.
So a paradox is essentially something which resembles a "real contradiction".

A contradiction is either a 'real' one or it is not a contradiction. You cannot have 'unreal' contradictions. This is absurd semantic onanism and I can only assume you got it from Langan.

By "real", I mean supported by reality's syntax. An unreal contradiction is just a contradiction (but not a paradox). The only reason the liar's paradox is supposedly important is because it would seem as if it were, in fact, a true paradox. But it's not.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 11:52:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 11:39:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/31/2014 11:36:46 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 11:31:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The difference between the two is this:
A paradox is something which seems to be true yet false (which is a contradiction).
A contradiction is something which defeats itself and is therefore false.
So a paradox is essentially something which resembles a "real contradiction".

A contradiction is either a 'real' one or it is not a contradiction. You cannot have 'unreal' contradictions. This is absurd semantic onanism and I can only assume you got it from Langan.

By "real", I mean supported by reality's syntax. An unreal contradiction is just a contradiction (but not a paradox). The only reason the liar's paradox is supposedly important is because it would seem as if it were, in fact, a true paradox. But it's not.

So that's a "yes" on the Langan point. Quelle surprise.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 11:55:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 11:52:31 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 11:39:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/31/2014 11:36:46 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 11:31:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The difference between the two is this:
A paradox is something which seems to be true yet false (which is a contradiction).
A contradiction is something which defeats itself and is therefore false.
So a paradox is essentially something which resembles a "real contradiction".

A contradiction is either a 'real' one or it is not a contradiction. You cannot have 'unreal' contradictions. This is absurd semantic onanism and I can only assume you got it from Langan.

By "real", I mean supported by reality's syntax. An unreal contradiction is just a contradiction (but not a paradox). The only reason the liar's paradox is supposedly important is because it would seem as if it were, in fact, a true paradox. But it's not.

So that's a "yes" on the Langan point. Quelle surprise.

You can pretty much assume that I get everything from Langan.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 12:11:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 12:04:46 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
And thus went any last vestige of credibility.

Oh please. Like you didn't already know.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 12:18:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
CTMU: combining the inane classifying and defining of gratuitous tiny concepts that annoy continental philosophy, with the long, dense, unpackable sentences that annoy analytic philosophers.

It is the skill of both burning and beating english students (or students of any discipline) by misusing technical terminology to such an extent that the greatest revelation one can get from reading the test is the 'Eureka' moment when the sentences finally begin to mimic the English language. Then that eureka is mistaken for finding some unfathomably deep truth of the universe, and then deifying concepts and ideas, such as how absolute truth is an active constraint in its own proof, and calling others heretics those who dare oppose the dogma of the true enlightenment.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 12:20:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, Sidewalker's claim of circularity is more likely than the two-tiered approach because there is no two-tiered approach in language how we use it, but the two-tiered approach must be invented to explain the dilemma.

In fact, it makes more sense to say that the phrase "this sentence is false" instead explains how limited English is as a form of expressing ideas.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 12:26:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 12:11:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/31/2014 12:04:46 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
And thus went any last vestige of credibility.

Oh please. Like you didn't already know.

I honestly didn't think you were quite that stupid. Very, very stupid, certainly, but not that bad. Obviously I was wrong.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:25:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 12:20:25 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Also, Sidewalker's claim of circularity is more likely than the two-tiered approach because there is no two-tiered approach in language how we use it, but the two-tiered approach must be invented to explain the dilemma.



It is not "invented", nor is it arbitrary. It is recognition of reality's structure, without which no paradox can be specified. Something can only be "real" if it conforms to reality's syntax, which means self-reference can only produce a paradox if it refers to itself in a way consistent with dual-stratification, in which case it's not a paradox.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:28:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 12:20:25 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Also, Sidewalker's claim of circularity is more likely than the two-tiered approach because there is no two-tiered approach in language how we use it, but the two-tiered approach must be invented to explain the dilemma.


If language does not take reality as its argument, then it cannot be used to specify a paradox (a supposedly real contradiction). Either language is used to describe something real, in which case the description must conform to dual-stratification, or it isn't, in which case the contradiction is not real.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:32:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Essentially, the solution to the paradox is predicated on the fact that reality must avoid paradox. We can simply figure out what structure reality must assume in order to remain consistent.