You seem to think that a picture is a causally closed event. The innate nature of pictures is that they are about other things because they are caused by those things - the innate nature of other things. It wouldn't be a "picture" if the image of the cup wasn't about the innate nature of the cup, just as words are about your mental state, but aren't your mental state, yet I can still imagine the nature of your mental state by you describing it to me. — Harry Hindu

The effect isn't the cause. The map isn't the territory. The woman isn't the painting of the woman.

If you want to say that things can only be the case if we can picture them in our mind then for the cause, the territory, and the woman to be the case we must be able to picture them in our mind.

You need to abandon your claim that things can't be the case if we can't picture them in our mind (else you have to abandon realism).

Would it be better if I had said that things can't be the case if we can't represent, symbolize, or simulate them in our mind? — Harry Hindu

Would it be better if I had said that things can't be the case if we can't represent, symbolize, or simulate them in our mind? — Harry Hindu

There are more stars in the universe than I can picture at any one time, yet presumably they still all exist at the same time.

Our brains/minds are powerful, but they're still limited.

And on the other side I can picture impossible objects like a Penrose triangle, so looking to what we can or can't imagine just doesn't seem like the appropriate way to determine what can or can't be the case.

There are more stars in the universe than I can picture at any one time, yet presumably they still exist. — Michael

Yet you symbolized the fact that there are more stars in the universe than you can "picture" with scribbles on screen.

Yet you symbolized the fact that there are more stars in the universe than you can "picture" with scribbles on screen. — Harry Hindu

What do you mean by symbolize? How does it differ from picturing? It's not just about being able to say the words is it? As you said before "the fact that you can put two scribbles or sounds that refer to opposite things together in space and time doesn't make what those scribbles refer to real, or true."

And on the other side I can picture impossible objects like a Penrose triangle, so looking to what we can or can't imagine just doesn't seem like the appropriate way to determine what can or can't be the case. — Michael

These objects are mental objects. They are real in the sense that the mind and thoughts are real because they establish causal relationships. Can you draw a picture of pictures in your mind?

What do you mean by symbolize? How does it differ from picturing? It's not just about being able to say the words is it? As you said before "the fact that you can put two scribbles or sounds that refer to opposite things together in space and time doesn't make what those scribbles refer to real, or true." — Michael

Exactly. The key phrase here is "refer to opposite things" - as if opposite attributes can be the innate nature of something other than a phrase in some language. Do objects with opposing properties exist?

Exactly. — Harry Hindu

I'm not sure what you mean by "exactly" as you haven't resolved the inconsistency of your position. I was addressing this:

Most contradictions appear to be a misuse of language. You can't actually picture a married bachelor, or a square-circle in your mind. You can picture the words, or the sounds of them being spoken together, and that creates the contradiction in your mind, but you could never have conceived of a married bachelor, or a square-circle without language. — Harry Hindu

You seem to be saying that married bachelors and square-circles can't be the case because I can't picture them in my mind, and yet there are 10²¹ stars in the universe even though I can't picture that many stars in my mind.

You then say that this doesn't matter because I can symbolize the fact that there are 10²¹ stars in the universe with scribbles on the screen, but I can also symbolize married bachelors and square-circles with scribbles on the screen.

So which is it? Must I be able to picture things in my mind for them to be the case, in which case there can't be 10²¹ stars in the universe, or is it enough that I can symbolize things with scribbles on the screen, in which case there could be married bachelors and square-circles?

The reason we don't experience contradictory propositions is precisely because what we experience is information, and if there is no information, then there is nothing to experience - except for the visual experience of the seeing scribbles on a screen or hearing sounds spoken - which is information, but about something else that isn't about what is being written or said. — Harry Hindu

Right. And so the word "contradiction" doesn't mean zero information, for that is nonsensical, but refers to conflicting sources of information, actions, intentions, judgements and so on. A "true" contradiction can be taken to refer to an unresolved conflict that is logically implied.

For example, conflicts of judgement that are present in discrete borderline categorisation problems, as in being in the kitchen and not in the kitchen, are not resolvable by introducing more linguistic precision, for the same borderline problem resurfaces on a finer level of semantic granularity; here the "true" contradiction refers to the fact that the concept of discreteness cannot be reconciled with the existence of borderline cases. It's all well and good hoping that the conflict is potentially resolvable, but there is no reason to believe that all such conflicts are resolvable.

You seem to be saying that married bachelors and square-circles can't be the case because I can't picture them in my mind, and yet there are 10²¹ stars in the universe even though I can't picture that many stars in my mind.

You then say that this doesn't matter because I can symbolize the fact that there are 10²¹ stars in the universe with scribbles on the screen, but I can also symbolize married bachelors and square-circles with scribbles on the screen.

So which is it? Must I be able to picture things in my mind for them to be the case, in which case there can't be 1021 stars in the universe, or is it enough that I can symbolize things with scribbles on the screen, in which case there could be married bachelors and square-circles? — Michael

But you did picture 10²¹ stars in your mind - with the scribbles, "10²¹ stars". Does not the scribble, "10²¹ stars" simulate a real state of affairs of their actually being something like 10²¹ stars in the universe? If not, then what are you saying when you say that there are 10²¹ stars in the universe?

As for married-bachelors and square-triangles, you haven't simulated anything. All you did was make a model of something that doesn't exist outside of your mind - like a Penrose triangle. In other words, contradictions are real thoughts, but not real thoughts about anything. They are pictures, or words, that have no aboutness to them.

But you did picture 1021 stars in your mind - with the scribbles, "1021 stars". Does not the scribble, "1021 stars" simulate a real state of affairs of their actually being something like 1021 stars in the universe? If not, then what are you saying when you say that there are 1021 stars in the universe?

As for married-bachelors and square-triangles, you haven't simulated anything. All you did was make a model of something that doesn't exist outside of your mind - like a Penrose triangle. In other words, contradictions are real thoughts, but not real thoughts about anything. They are pictures, or words, that have no aboutness to them. — Harry Hindu

You're begging the question then. You were using the fact that we can't picture married-bachelors and square-circles as proof that they can't be real, but are now saying that because there are 10²¹ stars in the universe then it doesn't matter that we can't picture them. And you're saying that the phrase "there are 10²¹ stars in the universe" simulates a real state of affairs because there are 10²¹ stars in the universe but that "married-bachelors" and "square-circles" doesn't simulate a real state of affairs because there can't be such things.

Right. And so the word "contradiction" doesn't mean zero information, for that is nonsensical, but refers to conflicting sources of information, actions, intentions, judgements and so on. A "true" contradiction can be taken to refer to an unresolved conflict that is logically implied.

For example, conflicts of judgement that are present in discrete borderline categorisation problems, as in being in the kitchen and not in the kitchen, are not resolvable by introducing more linguistic precision, for the same borderline problem resurfaces on a finer level of semantic granularity; here the "true" contradiction refers to the fact that the concept of discreteness cannot be reconciled with the existence of borderline cases. It's all well and good hoping that the conflict is potentially resolvable, but there is no reason to believe that all such conflicts are resolvable. — sime

It seems to me that in saying that there are borderline cases is the same as making a level of semantic granularity. The colors blue and green are distinct, yet we also have blue-green which is also distinct - related to blue and green, yet not blue or green. It seems to me that there are instances where something seems like a contradiction, yet it isn't because we find that they weren't opposing qualities, just different qualities that can interact and cause something new.

So why can I imagine blue-green, but not married-bachelors? Why can't I mix bachelors and married men together to get something new, like I can blue and green? Why don't bachelors and married men mix well? Why is it like water and oil? There seems to be something about their nature, like water and oil, that prevents them from being mixed, and something about blue and green that allows them to be mixed. It seems to be the fact that they are polar opposites - that one is defined as being the absence of the other. Blue and green are not defined as being the absence of the other. There is no borderline case for married-bachelors like there is for blue-green.

given enough paper, ink and time could you draw a picture of 10²¹ stars? Given the same amount of paper, ink and time could you ever draw a picture of a married-bachelor. Why or why not? Doesn't it have to do with one thing negating the other? Could you ever draw a picture of 10²¹ stars and not-10²¹ stars?

given enough paper, ink and time could you draw a picture of 1021 stars? Given the same amount of paper, ink and time could you ever draw a picture of a married-bachelor. Why or why not? Doesn't it have to do with one thing the negating the other? — Harry Hindu

So now you're saying that things can only be the case if they can be drawn? What about dark matter?

And how would a drawing of a bachelor, a married man, and a married-bachelor differ? All I could do is draw a man and then say that they're one of these.

So now you're saying that things can only be the case if they can be drawn? What about dark matter? — Michael

No, I'm saying that things can only be the case if they aren't immediately negated in the same instant by it's opposite. As I said, a contradiction amounts to a net-zero information. The moment you draw something or think of something you must draw or think of it's opposite in the same moment of time and the same area of (mental/material) space. All you end up with is one or the other in any moment of time or space. Just as if I were to write a computer program where x = 1 and then the next line will be x = 0, the computer will use the last definition, not both.

I'm saying that things can only be the case if they aren't immediately negated in the same instant by it's opposite. — Harry Hindu

Then you're just begging the question by asserting that contradictions are impossible. That's not a refutation of dialetheism, it's just a denial of it.

The moment you draw something or think of something you must draw or think of it's opposite in the same moment of time and the same area of (mental/material) space. All you end up with is one or the other in any moment of time or space.

You may have missed my edit, and it may be redundant now that you're backtracking from your talk about being able to draw stars, but how would drawings of a married man, a bachelor, and a married bachelor even differ? They'll just be drawings of a man that I say is married, a bachelor, or a married bachelor.

Then you're just begging the question by asserting that contradictions are impossible. That's not a refutation of dialetheism, it's just a denial of it. — Michael

That's good enough for me. I can't really refute the existence of god(s) or idealism/solipsism, only deny it, and the fact that you can deny them means that there are other means of solving the problems it attempts to solve, not the only solution to those kinds of problems. But tell me, can you deny the LNC and still solve problems like distinguishing between things, like true and false?

And I'm not denying that contradictions exist, or are possible. What I am denying is that contradictions exist as anything but a particular arrangement of scribbles or sounds in the air.

You may have missed my edit, and it may be redundant now that you're backtracking from your talk about being able to draw stars, but how would drawings of a married man, a bachelor, and a married bachelor even differ? They'll just be drawings of a man that I say is married, a bachelor, or a married bachelor. — Michael

A married man could have a ring on his finger and the bachelor without. How would you represent a married-bachelor?

A married man could have a ring on his finger and the bachelor without. How would you represent a married-bachelor? — Harry Hindu

So I can't draw a married man who isn't wearing a ring or a bachelor who is?

I thought it was obvious that I was talking about a wedding band, but of course, a bachelor could be trying on a wedding band and still be a bachelor, so why don't we go with what makes a man a bachelor or married, and draw a picture of a man doing what it takes to be married man or bachelor.

Or, since words are merely visual scribbles, like a picture, you could just write the definitions of married and bachelor and see how they relate. It's not just that they have different definitions, but that their definitions cancel each other out - that you can't, by definition, be one while being the other.

The solution isn't to think that they both exist in the same entity, rather the definition needs to be changed. Marriage and bachelorhood are cultural constructions and can be redefined at any time, for any reason, unlike the number of stars in the universe which is only changed when we find more or less stars in the universe.

I thought it was obvious that I was talking about a wedding band, but of course, a bachelor could be trying on a wedding band and still be a bachelor, so why don't we go with what makes one a bachelor or married, and draw a picture of a man doing what it takes to be a married man or bachelor. — Harry Hindu

Married men don't need to wear a wedding band and bachelors can if they like. And neither needs to be doing "married" or "bachelor" things to be married or a bachelor. A married man and a bachelor can be sitting in a Jacuzzi together wearing nothing but swimming trunks. How do I draw that one is a married man and one is a bachelor?

This is why your talk about whether or not I can draw a married man, a bachelor, or a married bachelor makes no sense. I can just draw three men and label them as married, a bachelor, and a married bachelor respectively.

Or, since words are merely visual scribbles, like a picture, you could just write the definitions of married and bachelor and see how they relate. It's not just that they have different definitions, but that their definitions cancel each other out - that you can't, by definition, be one while being the other. — Harry Hindu

So again, you're just denying dialetheism rather than refuting it, and what you said earlier about not being able to picture certain things in the mind is an irrelevant comment that does nothing to further your case (and has been shown false by my example of the number of stars in the universe, or the existence of dark matter).

Married men don't need to wear a wedding band and bachelors can if they like. And neither needs to be doing "married" or "bachelor" things to be married or a bachelor. A married man and a bachelor can be sitting in a Jacuzzi together wearing nothing but swimming trunks. How do I draw that one is a married man and one is a bachelor? — Michael

Then you seem to be saying that the words, "married", "bachelor" and "married-bachelor" are meaningless and that there is no difference between them, or that they could mean anything about a man. What is the relationship between these different strings of scribbles? Is a contradiction a misuse of language? Do you agree that there is such a thing as a misuse of language? If so, then what would a misuse of language entail?

So again, you're just denying dialetheism rather than refuting it, and what you said earlier about not being able to picture certain things in the mind is an irrelevant comment that does nothing to further your case (and has been shown false by my example of the number of stars in the universe, or the existence of dark matter). — Michael

While I may not be refuting dialetheism directly, I believe that I am at least doing indirectly by refuting the concept of a "married-bachelor" as meaningless. Contradictions are a means of refuting arguments. I've made contradictions and you showed how that refutes my argument (and I agree which is why I've been trying to rephrase and rework my argument), so if contradictions are used to refute and argument, then what use is dialetheism?

Contradictions are a means of refuting arguments. — Harry Hindu

Not when the position you're trying to refute is a position that says that some contradictions are true.

so dialetheism isn't refuting LNC, rather it is rejecting it sometimes?

What makes one contradiction false another true?