this thread should've ended after that post.

"God exists" is a claim about our physical world isn't it? Why else would there be so much debate on it?

You're confused. That's an assertion *about* the world. The proposition the assertion expresses is not part of the physical world. It's an abstract object.

Relativity destroys the notion of simultaneity while LNC requires simultaneity.

Time is not an actual component of the LNC at all. All the LNC says is that the proposition not be true and false in the same sense (i.e. the variable stand for the same thing). Propositional logics and quantified logics don't make use of time at all, it's not part of the formalism. You'd have to go to a temporal logic for that, and even then the LNC would be relativized to particular reference frames.

Relativity destroys the notion of simultaneity while LNC requires simultaneity. — TheMadFool

That can't be quite right.

If the train hits poor Freddy, Freddy is dead and there was a simultaneous event at a given location.

What may differ are the clock measurements and that is all Relativity is concerned with. It is the Sci Find writers that wish to elevate Special Relativity clock time to an ontology. Relativity is about converting measurements, nothing more but that doesn't stop science from building tales around it to sell books. General Relativity us a mathematics description about gravity. It had nothing to do with time. Einstein even had to invent a mathematics to make it work.

You're confused. That's an assertion *about* the world. The proposition the assertion expresses is not part of the physical world. It's an abstract object. — MindForged

You're right. Propositions are ''about'' the world but doesn't that require that they concur with the actual goings on in the world? If I say ''God exists'' or ''I should do good'' etc. am I not making claims of this world. The facts of the world apply to propositions do they not?

Time is not an actual component of the LNC at all. — MindForged

It has to be. If it weren't then everything would be a contradiction. I'm hungry at noon and not hungry in the afternoon. This isn't a contradiction because the two occur at different times.

If the train hits poor Freddy, Freddy is dead and there was a simultaneous event at a given location. — Rich

Yes the accident happened but at different times to different observers. Observer A saw it happen at 6 o'clock and observer B at 7 o'clock. Time, being relative, can't have the property of simultaneity.

the accident happened but at different times to different observers. Observer A saw it happen at 6 o'clock and observer B at 7 o'clock. Time, being relative, can't have the property of simultaneity. — TheMadFool

Real time is not relative. Freddy is dead. Measurement is relative because it depends upon the speed of light.. Unfortunately the myth persists that real time is relative because it makes good copy.

You're right. Propositions are ''about'' the world but doesn't that require that they concur with the actual goings on in the world? If I say ''God exists'' or ''I should do good'' etc. am I not making claims of this world. The facts of the world apply to propositions do they not?

Of course not. Propositions can be false and so fail to describe something about the world (if it's a claim about the world anyway). However, the facts of the world do not apply to propositions, propositions are not a physical object. How would facts about the world apply to a proposition? Propositions (OK, this isn't quite right since these are sentences but for simplicity's sake) are true or false statements. Like if I say "Mars exists" that's either true or false. But the proposition itself isn't part of the world, the content of the proposition does contain references to a real object though.

It has to be. If it weren't then everything would be a contradiction. I'm hungry at noon and not hungry in the afternoon. This isn't a contradiction because the two occur at different times.

Well you can say it is, but I can just look at a formalism of a logic and simply note that the system contains no concept of time in it. You are moving between "logic" (theories of what follows from what) to reality (the domain of physics). As I said, if you want to legitimately add time as part of the LNC you'd have to use a temporal logic, which makes the appropriate adjustments.

Relativity is understood in the standard mathematical lens (ZFC & CL), which most assuredly DOES have the Law of Non-Contradiction as an axiom.

Relativity is understood in the standard mathematical lens (ZFC & CL), which most assuredly DOES have the Law of Non-Contradiction as an axiom. — MindForged

Please read my OP. I've given the references. I don't see how there can be a contradiction when time isn't absolute.

Please read my OP. I've given the references. I don't see how there can be a contradiction when time isn't absolute. — TheMadFool

The measurement of the simultaneity of events is not absolute, because it requires the sending of a signal. This is a measurement problem. Thanks to pop science text books, there is a pervasive confusion between the problems of measuring simultaneity (Relativity takes the stance that the speed of light is constant and uses this for transformation), and the actual time experienced in life. Whatever someone else may observe on another planet, when the train hits Freddy he is dead. The only disagreement may be in the clock time (simultaneity instrument) it happened.

Philosophers need to put Relativity in the small confines it belongs and not elevate it to an ontology. Science fiction writers can do as they wish.

Please read my OP. I've given the references. I don't see how there can be a contradiction when time isn't absolute.

??? I said there isn't a contradiction. Also, what @Rich said.

??? I said there isn't a contradiction. Also, what Rich said. — MindForged

What I'm saying is that the concept of contradiction is meaningless when time is relative.

I already answered this. Even if I assume time is relative in the way you suggest, the LNC forbids a proposition and its negation from being true in the same sense. That does not exclusively mean "at the same time" (though it can mean that). Example:

"2+2=4 & it's not the case that 2+2=4"

There is no concept of time imported here, it's just the conjunction of a proposition with its negation and regards a formal, time-independent matter. And yet, it's a contradiction. Ergo the concept of a contradiction does not require the concept of time to be assumed.

Mathematical definitions and what's derived from them are timeless. So, you're right time doesn't matter.

But consider the statements A=God exists and ~A=God does not exist.

If we don't have a temporal dimension to these statements then there is no contradiction. There's no contradiction in saying ''God existed'' and ''God does not exist''.

A & ~A is a contradiction precisely because they talk of the same universe and the same time.

Huh? By accepting my math example you've already conceded the point. The concept of a contradiction does not require time. That doesn't mean no contradictions make use of the concept. In fact, that is demonstrably not the case as I showed. Also, your God example doesn't work. There is a contradiction in:
A: God exists
~A: It's not the case that God exists

Even ignoring time, that's a contradiction if both are asserted.

Clearly: Relativity is contradictory and nothing more than pseudo-science.
(Ask me to back this up)

I'm in a dark room with two light switches which will be activated by one switch. I also have a torch. The torch, as well as firing photons out, has a little massless mad scientist taped to the beam of light - he sees things from the perspective of the light beam. The two lights are the same distance from the floor, and how I am holding the torch would point directly to the filament of each torch when shone on them; the lightbulb filaments are on the same elevation and the same elevation as the torch. I shine the torch at one of the lightbulbs and turn them both off using the switches at the same time.

(A) In my, the torch holder's reference frame, the two lightbulbs go off at the same time.
(B) In the mad scientist's reference frame, the lightbulb he's heading towards turns off first.

Are (A) and (B) contradictory? Nah. What would make (A) and (B) contradictory?

If (A) was 'The two lightbulbs go off at the same time' and (B) was 'One lightbulb turns off before the other'. That's a contradiction. But is it what special relativity says? No. Special relativity emphasises that space and time - distances and durations of events - are indexed to a reference frame. Each consequence of special relativity (insofar as it relates to the relativity of simultaneity) has a set of indexicals - labels of reference frames - which dodge contradictions like this.

Saying they're contradictory is equivalent to imagining two guys in suits, John and James, applying the predicate 'x,y are currently in a meeting together' to both, and noting that it's currently false when they aren't in a meeting, and true when they are in a meeting. Contradictory? No. Why? Indexicals and a binary predicate. There's no inference you could do to extract 'are currently in a meeting together' as a stand-alone thing, a single element in the domain of discourse, since it is a mapping from pairs of objects in the domain of discourse to true/false. Doing so is the same procedure as trying to bring out a 'time' from the domain of discourse regarding special relativity whose quantities are not derived from relations between reference frames (relation being Lorentz transform).

In exactly the same sense, you can't extract 'are happening in the same time' or 'are not happening at the same time' as unary predicates (simple properties) from the logic of special relativity, since 'are happening at the same time' and 'are not happening at the same time' are ternary (3-valued) predicates here. Specifically, there are events x and y and an indexical reference frame p, and 'x and y happen at the same time in reference frame p' can be predicate H(x,y,p). 'At the same time' now means 'a mapping from 3-tuples of (x,y,p) to true or false'. You don't get to form a binary predicate H'(x,y) which says for all x and ys whether they happen at the same time, since using special relativity means to assume that this relation is ternary rather than binary. IE, equality in time when considered in a specific reference frame vs equality in time for all.

Edit: is it surprising that nonsense and contradictions arise if H' is set equal to H? No. That's precisely the manoeuvre which allows you to derive a contradiction from (A) and (B).

Clearly: Relativity is contradictory and nothing more than pseudo-science.
(Ask me to back this up) — Jonathan AB

You should get together with @Rich. He is our, one of our, resident scientific contrarians. For me, there are two tests of such a contrarian approach. 1) Do you know enough about the science that I should listen to your opinion and 2) Are you sincere in your beliefs or just being contrarian for the fun of it? Not that I have anything against recreational contrariness.

You should get together with Rich. — T Clark

What I object to it's pseudo science where concepts are just fabricated to fit the materialist agenda of the bio and neuro science commercial industry. The overall pretence that life is an illusion and things like filling humans with plastic is perfectly healthy because they are nothing more than Moist Robots.

They are perfectly compatible. At least they are compatible in the absence of time travels. But since time paradoxes are IMO nonsense (it is not possible to change the past and so on), they are compatible.

The relative simultaneity at best say that descriptions of some phenomena of two different reference frames are different. But in "the big picture", i.e., tha mathematical framework of the theory they is no contradiction (in the same way that the measurement of velocity of a car measured in its rest frame and measured by a speed camera are not contradictory).

Just to be clear, I wasn't finding fault with your way of seeing things, although I don't agree with it. It seems to me you and Jonathan AB have ideas in common.

I'm not familiar what Jonathan AB's ideas are yet. That remains to be seen. Clearly we both have reservations concerning Relativity's space-time's ontology, mine resting on the attempt to create equivalency of clock time (oscillations in space) and the duration of life.

(Ask me to back this up) — Jonathan AB

OK Jonathan, I'm asking, back this up.

Ah! So someone is actually reading. (Had to check first).

Here is my proof that gravity is instant:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/instant-gravity.htm
(my answer in short)
(ranked #1 at most search engines for 'instant gravity proof')

If you have more time, and want more detail:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htm

Also:
I am fairly close to completing an algorithm and article which demonstrate
how the principles of relativity would effect the bodies of the solar system
(if they indeed applied).

I am hoping to publish that about a week from today.
I'll place the link on this forum in the philosophy of science section.
By then you may have completed reading what I have written thus far
which I might add has taken me the better part of the last decade to author.

Here is my proof that gravity is instant: — Jonathan AB

Well, I'm not a mathematician, so I do not fully understand the general theory of relativity, but isn't this why space-time is "curved", to account for the problems you've demonstrated?

Here is my proof that gravity is instant:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/instant-gravity.htm
(my answer in short)
(ranked #1 at most search engines for 'instant gravity proof') — Jonathan AB

Didn't read it all, but the nature of the proof is pretty obvious in the initial diagram, and yes, it (speed-of-light gravity) would seem to inject energy into a closed system, with action not being balance by an opposite reaction.

The physics of instantaneous gravity seems flawed as well since it requires a simultaneity that is undefined without a frame. So OK, the frame of the mutual center of gravity is used, but that means that in different frames, the force on one object from another is different, which is contradictory. How can object X pull on me in different directions depending on reference frame? It could be measured, and the direction of force be used to determine an absolute reference frame.

Bottom line is I think your physics is off in the SOL example that spirals out, but I cannot yet put my finger on it. Such a simple proof must have been critiqued by the physics community.

— Jonathan AB

First consider gravity to be instant as Newton theorized; then consider it to travel at the velocity of light as Einstein proposed. — Instant Gravity Proof

The problems start right there. Einstein did not propose gravity to propagate at all. Gravity waves, yes, which act as the particle equivalent of excitations in the quantum field, but gravity itself (the sort that attracts two orbiting stars to each other) is just an effect observed by spacetime being curved by the two masses. There are no gravitons involved, and no propagation of anything.

They are perfectly compatible. — boundless

How can it be? Relativity says that simultaneity is observer dependent and the law of noncontradiction depends on simultaneity.

Some have said that logic doesn't have a time dimension. Coming to think of it I believe that's true. Discourse, logical discourse, requires constancy in meaning of the terms we employ. Change of meaning will mean equivocation and failure of discourse. Time is change and so must be excluded from logical matters.

However consider the statements H = I'm happy and N = I'm not happy. Over the course of a day H and N will alternate in our experience depending on the circumstances - there is no contradiction. However, the moment we claim H and N together at the same time there's a contradicton. Viewed in this way it seems logic does have a time dimension.

What do you think?

Ergo the concept of a contradiction does not require the concept of time to be assumed. — MindForged

H = I'm hungry and N = I'm not hungry

At noon H is true and N is false. In the afternoon N is true and H is false.

So, the truth value of H and N change over time. If anything affects truth value then it's relevant to the law of noncontradiction which is about an unacceptable truth value combination.

Hi,

there are IMO two things that we should be aware. One is the fact that the "flow" of time means that there is change. Change actually undermines our "preconceived" view that it is possible to "name" objects (I am thinking to Cratylus for example). With this in mind, it might be true that the application of logic on reality is impossible. In fact concepts and names are "fixed", stable (that's why Plato thought that if they existed they would be not in this world).

However in relativity particles are "fixed", i.e. do not change every moment. Therefore we can use "names" and "concepts".

Regarding being in the states H and N is not possible in relativity. The relativity of simultaneity simply asserts that two events that for us are simultaneous (say, I see an apple falling from a tree and at the same time my phone rings at the same time) are not simultaneous for other observers. Of course the two descritptions are different, but they are different because the observers are different (it is like seeing a lake from two different perspectives, the lake is the same but how we see it is different).

The reason of the impossibility of being in two opposite states is because in that case we (an observer) would observe a contradictory "event". So relativity at the level of a single perspective does not introduce contradictions. Contradictions arise when we think that our perspective is "absolute", so to speak.

I hope that I adressed your point ;)

If you have two truth functions T1(x) and T2(x) such that T2(x)=NOT(T1(x)), then [T1(x) AND T2(x)] is a contradiction. This says nothing about other values of x. It's possible to have T1(y)=T2(x), like 'not hungry' after lunch=y with 'hungry' before lunch=x.

With more detail, as you said, with 'hungry now' and 'not hungry now', these truth functions are negations of each other and functions of 'now'. However, you can still construct contradictions without reference to a variable - where you have constant symbols mapped to their truth values. Not everything can be considered as a function of an indexical like time, so contradictions don't 'evaporate' from the constant symbols.

If you're dealing with a set of truth functions which are propositional functions of an indexical, of course it only makes sense to think of the conjunction of two truth functions, [T1(x) AND T2(x)], as contrary if T2 is the negation of T1 at x. This is part of why contradiction is a rather sterile notion for dealing with events and other situational oppositions or other notions of contrariety.

How can it be? Relativity says that simultaneity is observer dependent and the law of noncontradiction depends on simultaneity. — TheMadFool

Agreed. Relativity states there is no preferred frame of reference but there is!

Suppose two electric switches are thrown simultaneously and poor Ted becomes toast. That is real! Whatever another observer saw, the preferred frame of reference is the one where the event took place in real time (duration).

Relativity is nothing more than a way to transforms equations. It is not an ontology. Science created an ontology with no basis to do so. They made the equations real and experience an illusion. Creating an ontology around Relativity creates a mysterious universe of time travel, twins aging differently, and other strange contradictions.

Glad to see others challenging the orthodoxy of mindless education.