Well, I could be arguing in my spare time."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 3:55 pm lol--you don't have a contradiction via two people disagreeing with each other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
Well, I could be arguing in my spare time."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 3:55 pm lol--you don't have a contradiction via two people disagreeing with each other.
Wow, from someone that professes to be an authority on logic, you certainly are ignorant of basic simple logic. -- Do you not understand that ~X=X is a logical impossibility? ...or is this too complex (or too simple?) for you to understand?Terrapin Station wrote:This is just gibberish, because it has nothing to do with logic.
It's a logical impossibility if X is standing for statements.RJG wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 4:23 pmWow, from someone that professes to be an authority on logic, you certainly are ignorant of basic simple logic. -- Do you not understand that ~X=X is a logical impossibility? ...or is this too complex (or too simple?) for you to understand?Terrapin Station wrote:This is just gibberish, because it has nothing to do with logic.
No offense TS, but you come across as a "poser".
RJG wrote:And secondly, wouldn't you further agree that if there WERE something that did logically connect "Nothing to Something", then this something is "Something" (and not-Nothing), which thereby defeats the nothing-hood of "Nothing"! In other words, if there were something (hint hint) that connected Nothing to Something, then this something is certainly not-Nothing! Therefore "Something comes from Nothing" is logically impossible; a self-contradiction; an oxymoron.
Terrapin Station wrote:This is just gibberish, because it has nothing to do with logic.
Look at the above exchange. I have to ask at this point RJG, can you read? Why do you keep insisting on these irrelevant straw man questions, thinking that the presence of 'X' and a logical operator or two is enough, in itself? Why do you insist that "talk is cheap" and that people should stick to syllogisms, but when your syllogisms are analyized you ignore the analysis and revert either to word salad, as you've done above, or simply ignoring argument altogether and just re-asserting your beliefs?RJG wrote: Do you not understand that ~X=X is a logical impossibility?
RJG wrote:Do you not understand that ~X=X is a logical impossibility? ...or is this too complex (or too simple?) for you to understand?
Nonsense, it doesn't matter what X stands for (...it is just a variable!).Terrapin Station wrote:It's a logical impossibility if X is standing for statements.
Steve, do yourself a favor, and re-look up the meaning of a "strawman fallacy". You are, and have been, using it in the wrong manner.Steve3007 wrote:(I know I know, straw man is my favourite term. But in this topic it does at least seem fitting in more ways than one.)
Endlessly falsely claiming that people are stating that the above is logically possible, so that you can attack them for it, is a straw man fallacy.RJG wrote:Is ~X=X a logical impossibility?
And there it is again. Quote somebody making this statement:Also if you can't recognize that ~X=X is a logical impossibility,
And there it is again! More obfuscation! More running away from answering this question.Steve3007 wrote:And there it is again. Quote somebody making this statement:
"~X=X is logical possible."
~X=X is an "I'm not really familiar with logic" way--and something that we often see from Randroids, with Ayn Rand as a good example of someone who wasn't really familiar with logic but who often liked to appeal to logic nevertheless--of stating a contradiction. Most logics do not have an equals sign as an operator/connective. The standard logical way of writing what you're getting at is ~(P&~P), which is the principle of noncontradiction in traditional bivalent logics.RJG wrote: ↑February 13th, 2020, 4:49 pmRJG wrote:Do you not understand that ~X=X is a logical impossibility? ...or is this too complex (or too simple?) for you to understand?Nonsense, it doesn't matter what X stands for (...it is just a variable!).Terrapin Station wrote:It's a logical impossibility if X is standing for statements.
If you can't answer this SIMPLE logic question - Is ~X=X a logical impossibility? -- then maybe you can understand why I think you are a "poser" (a pretend know-er of logic).
*******Steve, do yourself a favor, and re-look up the meaning of a "strawman fallacy". You are, and have been, using it in the wrong manner.Steve3007 wrote:(I know I know, straw man is my favourite term. But in this topic it does at least seem fitting in more ways than one.)
Also if you can't recognize that ~X=X is a logical impossibility, then we probably need to cease our discussions. If you (and TS) can't understand basic logic, then we are wasting our time.
Since I write software for a living (in C based languages), if X was a bool, I guess I'd tend to write something like X = !X.errapin Station wrote:The standard logical way of writing what you're getting at is ~(P&~P), which is the principle of noncontradiction in traditional bivalent logics.
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023