It's in the nature of reductio arguments to assume what is in contention and then derive a contradiction from that assumption. that's what I have done here. Assume Bart is right, and noncontradiction is not necessary. Then in some possible word, contradictions ensue. Hence, the assumption is false. — Banno
t's in the nature of reductio arguments to assume what is in contention and then derive a contradiction from that assumption. that's what I have done here. Assume Bart is right, and noncontradiction is not necessary. Then in some possible word, contradictions ensue. Hence, the assumption is false. — Banno
I don't deny that there is a possible world in which contradictions are true (whatever a 'possible world' is - I have no idea). I claim that in the actual world contradictions are not true.
Show me how I am contradicting myself. — Bartricks
I claim that in the actual world contradictions are not true... Show me how I am contradicting myself. — Bartricks
You are in the actual world claiming there is an instance contradictions are true. game set match — Cheshire
Bartricks claims that there are contradictions in the word. Hence he claims that for some proposition A, both A and ~A are true. — Banno
Bartricks claims that there are contradictions in some possible word. Hence he claims that for some proposition A, both A and ~A are true.
If A and ~A are true, then any proposition is true.
If anything is true, then "Bartricks does not claim that there are contradictions in that possible world" is true.
Hence, Bartricks claims that there are contradictions in some possible word, and Bartricks does not claim that there are contradictions in that possible word.
Which was to be proved — Banno
Yes, I understand that you are claiming that the laws of logic hold in the actual world but not in other possible worlds. — Banno
Bartricks claims that there are contradictions in some possible word. Hence he claims that for some proposition A, both A and ~A are true. — Banno
Squiggles and squoggles. Let's get rid of them, shall we. — Bartricks
you have attributed to me the view that I think that for some proposition A, A is both true and false. Yes? — Bartricks
Look, you might as well give up — Bartricks
Oh, what an opportunity that would be. Yes, I'd love to discuss dialethism with him. — Banno
Squiggles and squoggles. Let's get rid of them, shall we.
— Bartricks
Well, no, since they are part and parcel of the logic you claim to understand, and they permit us to see the structure of the arguments more clearly. — Banno
No, I have demonstrated that the view that for some proposition A, A is both true and false, is a consequence of your view that the law of noncontradiction does not apply in some possible worlds. Reject noncontradiction in any possible world, and you reject it for every possible world. — Banno
I'm sure he would make an excellent argument for dialetheism. That's what's missing here — Banno
No, they make it less clear for I don't know what they mean. — Bartricks
No, how does that follow? — Bartricks
I think there is a possible world (whatever one of those is) in which the law of non-contradiction is false. It doesn't follow that it is false in all possible worlds. How does that follow?? It just plain doesn't. — Bartricks
I am not arguing that the law of non-contradiction is actually false, but that it is true, just contingently. Or rather, that there is no contradiction involved in holding that view. — Bartricks
Well, here's the odd thing; those symbols are pretty standard, and anyone who has taken the trouble to study logic will be familiar with them. But also, there is an audience to these proceedings,a nd I am writing for the as well as for you. — Banno
I've presented the argument three - or is it four - times. Its just applying the so-called principle of explosion to modality. — Banno
You are very fond of demanding that folk address your argument. I have presented an argument showing that it does. Please address it. — Banno
Because he knows his stuff. For example, he can read the Squiggles and squoggles. — Banno
So you are arguing that there is no contradiction involved in holding the view that non-contradiction is false. — Banno
they come in at the crucial point and I think that's no accident. — Bartricks
to get from 'there is a possible world in which it is false' to 'it is actually false' you'd need to help yourself to the notion of necessity, — Bartricks
That's not what 'knowing your stuff' involves. — Bartricks
When is the penny going to drop? I wonder.... — Bartricks
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.