(R v ~ R) is never untrue. time and place are irrelevant. — Banno
R v ~R doesn't need to know it's guaranteed to win in order to win; as far as it knows, it's just always lucky. — Srap Tasmaner
The intensional revolution in fact sweeps away truth along with possibility — Srap Tasmaner
Not if the "or" is thought of as exclusive — Janus
+---+----+----------+ | R | ~R | R XOR ~R | +---+----+----------+ | T | F | T | +---+----+----------+ | F | T | T | +---+----+----------+
For "it is raining" (R) to be true, we have to go out and verify — Agent Smith
Don't fall to the idealist error of thinking truth is dependent on you. Down that path lies solipsism.
It could still rain without you noticing.
Perhaps in Spain, on the plain. — Banno
It's just as true for XOR. — Banno
This seems to have the odd result that the sentence "it is raining or it is not raining" is true because it corresponds to anywhere. — Banno
It can't be luck if whatever sentence we stick in (pv~p) gets us truth. It's structure, not correspondence. — Banno
In the back of my mind I'm thinking of the intuitionist's rejection of p v ~p as an unqualified introduction rule. — Srap Tasmaner
If it means "raining or not raining, but not both" then it is not always true, — Janus
You are not doing argument.
It corresponds to the fact that it is never, at the same place and time, both raining and not raining. — Janus
Could it be both raining and not raining on Earth at any given time? — Janus — Banno
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.