By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. — The Buddha
I would like to ask if, in terms of truth, do we only have true or false, zero or one, yes or no, or does exist something else in the middle describing something between the two. — mads
I would like to ask if, in terms of truth, do we only have true or false, zero or one, yes or no, or does exist something else in the middle describing something between the two. — mads
the cat to be sitting on the threshold of the given room's door. — javra
Law of Excluded Middle or the Law of Noncontradiction, from which the former is derived — javra
The law of excluded middle is logically equivalent to the law of noncontradiction by De Morgan's laws [...] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
The [law of excluded middle] should not be confused with the semantical principle of bivalence, which states that every proposition is either true or false. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
I would like to ask if, in terms of truth, do we only have true or false, zero or one, yes or no, or does exist something else in the middle describing something between the two. — mads
Yes, in mathematics, it's called "Probability", or "Fuzzy Logic". In philosophy it's called "the Excluded Middle" of a continuum, and in ordinary parlance it's called "Maybe".. Only if the postulates are directly contradictory, is there no middle ground. But that kind of certainty is hard to come by. Which is why philosophers argue a lot. :smile:I would like to ask if, in terms of truth, do we only have true or false, zero or one, yes or no, or does exist something else in the middle describing something between the two. — mads
Yes, I find it misleading because it employs only one variable (A) rather than distinguishing between a subject (S) and a predicate (P) as attributed to it by a proposition. I also prefer referring to the so-called "laws of thought" as principles, since (as already noted) there are viable logical systems in which they do not hold.If A is A (ID) then A cannot both be A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect (NC); next, if the LID and the LNC, neither can A be something intermediate between A and not-A which, thereby, would be neither A nor not-A. Any objections to that formulation? — javra
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.