It's worth noting the distinction between saying that 'there are no contradictions in nature' (implying that, at least in principle, there could be) and that 'the very idea of a contradiction is inapplicable to nature' (i.e. that it is not impossible but non-sensical to speak of 'things/entities/events/actions' as contradictory or not: an error of grammar, as if to ask if an idea is coloured or not). The OP trades on the second kind of error - it is a grammatical mistake. — StreetlightX
If it is nonsensical to apply the law of noncontradiction to nature then what is nature? — litewave
That is what we expect the universe to be: rational. — Hachem
But this is the wrong question. It's a question of grammar and sense, not 'being' (what 'is'...?). — StreetlightX
It makes perfect sense to say that proposition X and proposition ¬X contradict: from this, one can draw conclusions, make inferences, etc. This is just what is means to make sense, to be sensical. No such way of proceeding presents itself when saying that some determinate thing or action or whathaveyou 'contradicts' itself or another thing. — StreetlightX
As Raymond Geuss points out, what we mistakenly think of as 'contradictions' in actions (for example) are generally just conflicts: — StreetlightX
It is no contradiction to say that Lord X’s cavalry were trying to move from point A to point B, and encountered Lord Y’s cavalry, who were trying to move from point B to point A. — StreetlightX
Lord X’s cavalry were trying to move from point A to point B and simultaneously Lord X’s cavalry were not trying to move from point A to point B. — litewave
it would be absurd if a thing or an action contradicted itself. It would mean that the thing or the action is not what it is. — litewave
What does this even mean? Is this a state of affairs that can obtain in reality? No, but then, that's because it's your description that is absurd. It's an artificial knot you tied with language, nothing more. — StreetlightX
Another knot, linguistically derived: create an absurdity, declare it's impossibility, than say that such a thing cannot be. A closed circle of triviality. — StreetlightX
In this sense, reality itself is logically consistent. — litewave
perhaps it's more correct to say that only logically consistent statements describe reality. — Michael
Special relativity in being an empirical theory is, like with any scientific theory, only designed to account for empirical observations obtainable in the first-person. — sime
Would you say that reality is true or would you say that only true statements describe reality? If the latter, then perhaps it's more correct to say that only logically consistent statements describe reality. — Michael
Being consistent can be understood as having an identity, being identical to oneself, and so it is a property of things in general, not just of statements. — litewave
This is exactly what RT is not. If there has ever been a god-like perspective then it is that of RT. How else could you explain time dilation and space contraction? Observers in their own frame of reference do not experience it. — Hachem
As I said, if reality contained a contradiction it would mean that something is not identical to itself - and that would be nonsense. — litewave
Moreover, if you abandon the law of non-contradiction all your arguments automatically refute themselves. — litewave
I'm afraid I don't see that at all. As an example, suppose that our current physical theories turn out to be "true" about reality. In that case, quantum physics is inconsistent with relativity, but the law of identity still holds. A think is still identical to itself. I just don't follow your logical argument here. — fishfry
This I also don't understand. If you mean that if I don't believe in Aristotelian logic that I can't have a rational conversation, that's clearly false. — fishfry
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.