Thank you, fishfry. It is apparent I had misunderstood you. My apologies.
One is a principle of classical logic; and the other is a principle of modern physics.
— fishfry — Banno
Meta, both Angie and Beth agree as to what happened. They agree that the events were simultaneous for Angie, but not for Beth. — Banno
If circumventing the law of non-contradiction is error, then yes, that is what I believe, the last 110 years of physics is built on error. Contradiction is rampant in modern physics. But it has been demonstrated in the past, by the sophists in ancient Greece, that circumventing the law of non-contradiction can be very profitable. So to the extend that ignoring the fact that special relativity circumvents the law of non-contradiction has proven to be in some ways beneficial, you might not call this error. It's like lying and deception, from one perspective these things are beneficial, but from another perspective they are error. I look at it from the perspective of the philosopher, which is the desire to know the truth, so I say yes, modern physics is built on error. It employs a misconception of time.do you really believe that the last 110 years of physics is built on an error? — Banno
If circumventing the law of non-contradiction is error, then yes, that is what I believe, the last 110 years of physics is built on error. — Metaphysician Undercover
Agreed, that the speed of light is constant no matter what the frame of reference, is a very flimsy principle, not verified, nor verifiable from human beings' present technological condition, but quite likely not at all acceptable as a universally applicable law. It is an inductive principle induced without proper evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover
that the speed of light is constant no matter what the frame of reference, is a very flimsy principle, not verified, nor verifiable from human beings' present technological condition, but quite likely not at all acceptable as a universally applicable law. — Metaphysician Undercover
Think that puts an end to the discussion. — Banno
The laws of physics are universally applicable. That’s what makes them laws. — Banno
Really? How do we know the laws of the physics are valid everywhere? We have a very small sample of local observations. — fishfry
And that's what makes them laws? That's really not a good argument. Are Newton's laws universally valid? Were they universally valid and "laws of the universe" in 1900 but not 1920? I hope you can put your claims into context because as it stands they're just wrong. — fishfry
B) The law of noncontradiction — TheMadFool
So, there is no such thing as a contradiction — TheMadFool
A Noncontradiction is the truth. — Hand In Hand
People seem to think "logic" means Aristotle's logic from 2400 years ago. Nothing could be further from the truth. Today logicians are perfectly comfortable embracing and formalizing contradictions. — fishfry
That's absurd. How on earth are propositions (an abstract object) "matter-based"? Show exactly where a proposition is in the physical world.This is a stretch but thoughts, propositions included, are, so far as we know, matter-based. Is it too much, then, to say that the ToR applies to propositions that aren't about our physical world? — TheMadFool
That's absurd. How on earth are propositions (an abstract object) "matter-based"? Show exactly where a proposition is in the physical world. — MindForged
Relativity does not violate non-contradiction. — MindForged
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.