In normal logic, (True AND False) = False, always.
In your system, Marc, sometimes (True AND False) = True.
True and False are therefore indistinguishable. Congratulations, you've completely destroyed meaning itself.
Jason, No reply link. I'm replying to your post below.
SIGH... Please do not put words in my mouth because you are wrangling around trying to fit all this in an absolute T or F mindset.
I never said anything about equating "feet" with "things". Come on man, take the proposition AS IT IS STATED and draw a proper conclusion - False. My system would only APPEAR to equate true and false if you assume ONLY true or false. How many ways do I have to state it?
Your conclusions on my system are actually quite the opposite of what it allows. It is the strict Formal Logic system which allows for emotional 'blue ribbons' to those too lazy to seek out a re-stating of propositions for clarity - if a re-statement can be made.
I chuckle at your statement that I only give lip service to objective reality. Again this is based on your incessant, dare I say emotional, need to maintain a world view where objective reality takes precedence over subjective reality.
We've been here, Jason. What appears to you as my justification for everyone's emotional need to be right is actually quite the opposite. The emotional need to be right is justified by those using the comfort of always being able to fall back on a world view of only T or F. Oh how some people need this in their lives. I beseech you. No more putting words in my mouth! Every perspective is not necessarily equally true and there are positions which are 100%. It just so happens that the question posited on this thread (the proposition derived by it) is one of those which is only properly concluded as both T and F.
With your statement "I am left to surmise that you simply value everybody's emotional need to 'be right' more than you value objective reality." I wonder if you have even investigated the "Subjective precedence..." approach at all. I doubt you will be willing to meet me in the middle at Subjective/Objective inextricably intertwined until you do.
If you choose not to and if you're going to continue and continue and continue to try and force every proposition into only T or F, it is not I who is unwilling to have a reasoned discourse. Are we back to standing and staring speechless again?
You're stuck in the tautology.
Axiom [Formal Logic] = Only T or F
Proposition ["In normal Logic, (True and False) = False, Always."]
I can only surmise by your proposition you mean to conclude: Therefore Formal Logic - only T or F.
The claim that (True and False) = False in Formal Logic is part of the tautology to deny contradictions. Hmmm... Geee... If we HAVE to have ONLY T or F... hmmm... well... we can't have a (True AND False)... so we're just going to throw it on the trash heap as False. Not very logical.
No. In my system (True AND False) = (True AND False)
True = True
False = False
(Not True AND Not False) = (Not True AND Not False)
You're desperately holding on to the immense complications involved in trying to force conclusions of all propositions into ONLY T or F. Meaning is alive and well.
Marc, I'll speak very slowly. You assert that it is possible for something to be both true and false. In ordinary human language, this means that you are saying that such a thing can be true. In mathematical terms, you are very definitely asserting that:
(True AND False) = True (at least in some cases)
You say that you are asserting that:
(True AND False) = (True AND False)
(and only (True AND False))
But of course by saying that some condition can hold, you are saying that it can be true. Just regular old true.
You also say that it is possible for something to not be both true and false. In ordinary human language you are saying that such a thing can be false. You are thereby equating the logical states of true and false. If you do this, then there is no such thing as true and no such thing as false. There is just an epistemological paste.
I'm on quite firm ground insisting that this is nonsense. You are speaking in vapors by insisting that things can be both true and false. If you truly believe this, then you are rejecting the very concepts of true and false. In so doing, you invalidate your own assertion.
You can stand and stare speechless if you like, but I'm not the loony one here. Accusing me of being illogical when I insist on hewing to the bedrock principles of logic is pretty rich. You're the one attempting to destroy logic itself. And somehow I'm the radical here? Don't think so.
I am 100% positive that there is no form of a god out there.
I've been forced to take some Art History classes as per the requirements for the program I'm in, and it's much more interesting that I thought. Since the majority of early art is related to religion, we discuss it a lot in class, specifically the Big Three - Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
The more we talk about them, and their origins, the more I realize that they're just bullshit cults made up by people who were simply trying to figure out how the world worked. Christianity specifically has borrowed almost everything from earlier pagan religions, and this alone makes it impossible to doubt in the slightest that there is no god. People made it, and people maintain it.
After 3 decades of asking him/her to reveal him/herself to me, I would have to confidently say there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of God's existence.
The 'potential' of nothing is still nothing.
"Perhaps the potential of nothing is everything"
Time being the "big hill" to climb here.
"According to quantum mechanics, anything that is possible is mandatory"
~ Leonard Susskind; Black Hole Wars
People who take Susskind's quip seriously will also take "QM proves that QM doesn't exist" seriously.
The problem with 'nothing' is that even though it seems a perfectly valid concept it is impossible for a mere human to envision (much less describe) just what 'nothing' is. No matter how hard we try we cannot even imagine 'nothing'. It is much like infinity; while we may be able to contemplate it, understanding it seems improbable. Especially when discussing time as we intuitively assume a 'beginning'; if infinity extends in both directions of our 'arrow' then beginnings and ends have ceased having meaning.
Potential automatically assumes that there is something there on which it can act.
Me, I find existential solace with the concept of infinite universes and dimensions. This makes everything not only possible but inevitable. Perhaps we continually pop in and out of existence here in this dimension only it happens so fast that we can not measure it.
Now all I got to do is prove it. Here's is how I see the problem:
(+/-)T(time) multiplied by the square root of infinity= NOW (No Other When)
Of course I am 'probably' wrong, but I avoid occupying two places at the same time this way. Then again, 'potentially', I may be right.
Is "potential" the same thing as "probability"?