ATTN: ChemicalSage

I asked you if you could write a Program that violated any of these statements (assume A = true):

(A == A) == true

(A && !A) == false

(A || !A) == true

And you said "No."

That's right you cannot!

Well, it also turns out that you cannot think a coherent thought with out those three things as well. (Not to mention articulate those thoughts apart from the three statements.)

Now, here is where it gets interesting!

Those three statements are the Laws of Logic!

The first is the Law of Identity: (A == A) == true.

The second is the Law of Contradiction: (A && !A) == false.

And the third is the Law of the Excluded Middle: (A || !A) == true.

A person is breaking all of them when they say "I am only denying that there are absolute answers [...]"

Allow me to demonstrate: If there are no absolute answers, then you cannot believe any answers absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute answers. Therefore, nothing could be really an answer for you - including that there are no absolute answers.

Absolute answers = false (in their world) so A == false. But Absolute answers = false is an absolute answer so (in their world) also A == true. But wait a second (in their world) (A == A) == false! And that means that (A && !A) == true too for he says that he "allow[s] for absolute and non absolute answers"! And since he says that he "allow[s] for absolute and non absolute answers" then (A || !A) == false!

So in the end "I am only denying that there are absolute answers [...]" is nonsense; the program would never compile let alone run and produce anything of value! It's called a self-refuting statement.



-Tom Bombadil

Okay, first off computer science is a great program that covers many areas of logic. We have to take more math than math majors at the beginning, so you must have know that I'd know the three laws.

I'm not sure if this is in answer to a question I had, or something I said. But, I know there are absolute answers.

Whether there are abosolute answers or not, we may not be able to find them in any given scenario. So, for our purposes, no absolute answers can be found in some instances.

God save relativity!!!

Saying that there is "no known answer for a given question" is not the same as saying that "there are no absolute answers".

I am glad you see the difference! But, alas, others fail to.

Also, I posted this because of posts like the preceding one.

-Tom Bombadil

BTW: I knew this would be familiar to you. In fact that is why I started this dialog with you in the first place. I knew that you would provide the answers that illustrate well the point I was trying to make to others. Thank you for your help!

Beliefs are only absolute in relation to other beliefs and ideas. The Gestalt Theory of Perception (I think that's the one) states that we cannot perceive an object without a background to perceive it against. Without that background (whether it's the sky or a system of thought), it is impossible to distinguish the object from anything else. The same theory can be applied to religious thought. I don't know why people act like the world will fall apart if their absolutes aren't real. SCRAP

I have already done so. In fact I have posted three!

Go look for yourself at the begining of this very thread.

They are very much absolute answers. Go ahead and deny them in your next post and I will show you how they are absolute answers.

-Tom Bombadil

" take this simple statement "the sky is blue" its an absolute fact, but not at night... absolution destroyed."

actuallly you've proben a falsety to be false...whewww

how about this one..

the sky is absolutely colorless! which it is because the sky is not an object but a collection of objects which have color.

or this one the mind is not physical. the mind is an abstract process carried out by the physical brain.

Yes, there are abolute answers in some things. I think it's a mistake to try to apply it to religion, when we are so falible. That's just my thought.

hey tom do you believe absolutes are provable?

I prefer a blue sky than a gray sky.

well donna help keep your oceans clean and the sky will be more blue!

I didn´t know I had oceans. :-p

What's the point of this discussion, I missed it if it was already stated? That there are absolute answers to some things?

"if i don't agree with you that A = A then your whole theory falls apart."

Ahh, but you do! You have just shown that you DO agree that A == A!

Bludhall, you have shown me correct!

In order to say that logic is not absolute, one has demonstrated the absolute nature of Logic in the very act of making their declaration.

"How so?" you ask!

Ok, you say that logic is not absolute, well then express your view *without using any of the Laws of Logic* I here defend. You cannot.

"Why?" you ask.

This can, perhaps, be better seen by specifically discussing one of the laws of logic.

One of the Laws of Logic is called the Law of Contradiction (Not both A and not-A.) A maple leaf may be both green and not-green (yellow), but it cannot be both green and yellow at the same time and in the same respect--it is green in the summer, yellow in the fall. If it is green and yellow at the same time, it cannot be green and yellow in the same respect; one part, however small, will be green, another yellow. Greenness and not-greenness cannot at the same time and in the same way belong to a maple leaf.

The law of contradiction means something more though. It means that every word in the sentence "The line is straight" has a specific meaning. 'The' does not mean any, all, or no. 'Line' does not mean dog, dandelion, or doughnut. 'Is' does not mean is not. Straight does not mean white, or anything else. Each word has a definite meaning. In order to have a definite meaning, a word must not only mean something, it must also not mean something. Line means line, but it also does not mean not-line--or dog, sunrise, or Jerusalem.

If line were to mean everything, it would mean nothing; and no one, including you, would have the foggiest idea what you mean when you say the word line. The law of contradiction means that each word, to have a meaning, must also not mean something.

And so; anyone who says that logic is not absolute must use logic in his attack, thus undercutting his own argument.

-Tom Bombadil

ChemicalSage: the point of this thread was to get Bludhall to say "[...] if i don't agree with you that A = A then your whole theory falls apart [...]"

And then showing him that using words apart from A == A is unfeasible therefore showing that he does agree that A == A.

I know it sounds impossible but this kind of denial happens here often and it is a pet peeve of mine. Thanks again for your help.

-Tom Bombadil

Okay, but I/most people don't care whether people agree or disagree on whether A=A. They're the same thing, we'd have to re-define the words we are using (incorrectly at that) for an object to not be the same thing as that very same object.

What do these simple logical rules prove? That there are absolutes that we can define? How is that relevant to any of our recent discussions?

Stop looking for context ChemicalSage. The only point of this whole thread is to say what you just said; namely "we'd have to re-define the words we are using (incorrectly at that) for an object to not be the same thing as that very same object"!

Some people are just not as far along as you are and this is an attempt at helping some people out.

Bludhall: "I am not using logic in my attack Tom" No? Deny it all you want but words *necessitate* all three of the Laws of Logic whether you understand that or not. You used words to try and state your case and in doing so you proved my point, simple.

I do not understand why you are bringing "Faith" in to this thread. This particular thread has nothing to do with it. This is only about the absolute nature of Logic.

-Tom Bombadil

k

-Tom Bombadil

Got it.

Wait, Bludhall, do you mean about this topic or all topics? That's kinda of an important diffrence, no?

-Tom Bombadil