TiredThinkerOctober 04, 2021 at 05:307100 views66 comments
Is it possible for things to be both true and false at the same time or neither true or false at the same time? Or must things be either true or false at any given time?
“I stole this from Zen Master Suzuki Roshi: If it's not paradoxical it's not true!”
? C.B. Murphy
The law of non-contradiction appears to work "opposite" when applied to relative vs essential truth. An apparent thing must be one thing or the other. Do I turn left or right to get to this specific destination?
But if we are talking about the "ultimate" "destination", as it were, its not confined to left, right, up or down, forward or backward. Above or beneath. Its not everywhere, nor is it nowhere, nor is it both, neither, nor both and neither, nor neither both nor neither?
Any answer that is limited is limited. It can't be a complete answer, and thus falls short. The answer must be infinite to be fully true. Yet no answer is truly infinite, is it? Or is everything complete?
So we are limited to saying what the absolute truth is not? Or is there no real limitation?
In summary? Because the absolute truth is one, not two (any two must share a single reality or else each could not be grouped together), therefor any statement which says 'two' would contradict the truth of 'one'. Therefor all dualistic 'this, not that' statements are ultimately not true. Even though they may be pragmatically true. Eg, we may have to turn left.
I did. I gave it some thought and decided we should start from the basics.
A proposition being both true and false is a contradiction. I gave the example of how if x is a cat, it's impossible that x is not a cat (x is cat is true and x is a cat is false). There are three important principles at play here:
1. The law of noncontradiction. (can a proposition p be both true and false i.e. not true)
2. The law of the excluded middle (a proposition or its negation is true)
3. Principle of bivalence (a propositions can be either true or false and nothing else)
So,
If a proposition can be true and false, we have to look at 1 and 2
If a proposition can be neither true nor false, we have to examine 3
Is it possible for things to be both true and false at the same time or neither true or false at the same time? Or must things be either true or false at any given time?
My coffee is neither true nor false. The word "hello" is neither true nor false.
NickolasgasparOctober 04, 2021 at 10:51#6036100 likes
Reply to TiredThinker
Only claims(premises) and arguments can be true or not true in our world.
So a true claim is the one that is in agreement with current facts (describes them accurately).
An implication of this is that a claim may be true according to the current available facts but missing facts might mean it can ultimately be a false claim.
Since we have no access to all facts or Ultimate or Absolute claims...we only can work on what is currently available.
So a claim can never be true or not true at the same time because it is a judgment based on facts at that specific moment.
Hindsight is just a meta analysis of a claim with facts that do not belong at the same temporal point.
A proposition being both true and false is a contradiction. I gave the example of how if x is a cat, it's impossible that x is not a cat (x is cat is true and x is a cat is false).
What if you talk about the evolutionary ancestors of cats? One researcher says that's already a cat, another says that's not a cat yet.
Is it possible for things to be both true and false at the same time or neither true or false at the same time? Or must things be either true or false at any given time?
This is my old refrain. Most things that get people, at least philosophers, excited are neither true nor false. Examples:
Free will vs. determinism
Realism vs. idealism vs. materialism vs. pragmatism
Is it possible for things to be both true and false at the same time or neither true or false at the same time? Or must things be either true or false at any given time? — TiredThinker
This is my old refrain. Most things that get people, at least philosophers, excited are neither true nor false. Examples:
Free will vs. determinism
The nature of reality
The nature of truth
This is also the old Reductive versus Holistic refrain. If you look at particular things or events, each can be evaluated as Good or Bad, in the specified context : relative to me, to you, to everybody. But if you look at everything-in-general, the values are not so Black & White.
That's why my personal Holistic philosophy is summarized in the BothAnd Principle. From that perspective, it's hard to get too excited about any single example of the duality of reality. It's characterized by neither of the extremes (all-good or all-bad), but a moderate mixture of both. Otherwise life in the real world would be heavenly or hellish. So, the job of Philosophy (Wisdom) is to evaluate in terms of relative values : more-or-less Good or Bad ; True or False ; Real or Ideal. The Middle Path, the Way of Tao. :smile:
Both/And Principle : My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
So, the job of Philosophy (Wisdom) is to evaluate in terms of relative values : more-or-less Good or Bad ; True or False ; Real or Ideal. The Middle Path, the Way of Tao.
I posted this in the Knowledge of Good and Evil thread earlier today:
The belief of the existence of evil, at all, is what allows for the infinite manifestations of evil that we experience daily.
— PseudoB
Or as Lao Tzu wrote:
[i]Recognize beauty and ugliness is born.
Recognize good and evil is born.
Is and Isn't produce each other. Hard depends on easy, Long is tested by short,
High is determined by low, Sound is harmonized by voice, After is followed by before.[/i]
Tao Te Ching, Verse 2. Addiss and Lombardo translation.
But this is a bit different from the point I was trying to make in my post in this thread. I have a broken record refrain, for those who remember what that means. It goes like this - Most of the difficult issues we discuss in philosophy are metaphysical issues - they relate to the underlying assumptions we bring to the discussion. Metaphysical issues; like free will vs. determinism and the nature of reality, do not have true or false answers. They have no truth value. They are merely more or less useful for dealing with particular issues.
A proposition being both true and false is a contradiction. I gave the example of how if x is a cat, it's impossible that x is not a cat (x is cat is true and x is a cat is false).
— TheMadFool
What if you talk about the evolutionary ancestors of cats? One researcher says that's already a cat, another says that's not a cat yet.
Between each ancestor-descendant pair there really is not much of a difference to deserve separate species categories but in the long run, over many generations, differences accumulate and amplify and a point is reached when species distinction becomes necessary.
The researcher who claims that the forbears of cats are cats and the other researcher who makes the opposite claim are talking past each other - their meaning of "ancestor" is not the same. In the case of the former, the ancestor is exactly like the modern cat in physical and behavioral characteristics but in the latter's case, the ancestor is something else entirely.
Not a true contradiction - a definitional issue at best, confusion at worst.
Not a true contradiction - a definitional issue at best, confusion at worst.
But everything depends on definitions. You wrote it yourself with Sorite's paradox. What is the use of insisting on binary logic if I cannot apply it in many cases? In politics there are many questions where binary logic is of no use. Is the pay of a particular worker fair? Yes or no?
If x is a cat, it can't be not a cat. [law of noncontradiction, law of the exclused middle, XOR].
For any proposition p,
Either p is true OR p is false [principle of bivalence]
1. Item number 2 is true
2. The number of true statements in this list is not 2.
3. Puppies are evil co-conspirators with aliens from Haley's comet secretly scheming to steal your precious bodily fluids.
3 cannot be false; because if it is, 2 can neither be true nor false, and 1 be neither true nor false. That violates the principle of bivalence. Therefore, beware the puppies.
1. Item number 2 is true
2. The number of true statements in this list is not 3.
3. Puppies are evil co-conspirators with aliens from Haley's comet secretly scheming to steal your precious bodily fluids.
3 cannot be false; because if it is, 2 can neither be true nor false, and 1 be neither true nor false. That violates the principle of bivalence. Therefore, beware the puppies.
What is the use of insisting on binary logic if I cannot apply it in many cases? In politics there are many questions where binary logic is of no use.
You have a bit of a misconception here. Boolean logic is not used to answer questions but to validify statements - the answers to the questions. Epistemology of course plays a role in this and so - knowledge being something subjective and personal - whether a statement is true or false may differ from person to person.
A system of logic mustn't contradict itself within it's own framework. There's no need to be consistent across different frameworks though.
The statement "It's 12pm in the USA" doesn't contradict "It's 12am in China" because the logic systems use a different framework (in this case being the timezone).
Person A may say "Trump is an asshole" but can not say "Trump is a nice guy" at the same time because that would be a contradiction within the framework.
Person B may say "Trump is a nice guy" regardless of Person A because their opinions are different frameworks.
Person A may say "Trump is an asshole" but can not say "Trump is a nice guy" at the same time because that would be a contradiction within the framework.
That's not a great example. Let's say person A does indeed say:
"Trump is an asshole, and is a nice guy."
Does that mean Person A said something contractory? Nope, and that's SolarWind's point. Ah, but he did make a contradiction, in some framework. Okay, but is Person A using that framework? All you can say is essentially, Person A contradicted himself, if he was in a framework where that's a contradiction.
All you can say is essentially, Person A contradicted himself, if he was in a framework where that's a contradiction.
And that is, as @TheMadFool pointed out an issue of definition. Language is a framework shared amongst all humans. Somewhere humanity agreed upon some arbitrary sequences of noises/signs to have a certain meaning. There are also rules of how these words need to be ordered and structured to make any sense. It's defined as such:
"the principal method of human communication, consisting of words used in a structured and conventional way and conveyed by speech, writing, or gesture."
And if I do not adhere to this framework of language, then I am simply not using language.
You may say, nothing is stopping me from saying something like "The Am philoso I I am you philosoph I the you the".
But this doesn't make any sense. It doesn't pertain to structure and convention. It's not language. I'm just making random noises which happen to have a meaning in the framework of language (which I'm not using).
Likewise, in the framework of language, as per definition of the words "Trump is an asshole and is a nice guy" doesn't make any sense. So this too, isn't even language. It's just a sequence of signs that seems to convey meaning - but doesn't.
What I am actually saying is that there are issues that are not subject to binary logic like opinions of different people. But there are also problems with it in logic like the liar paradox.
In the end, all that remains to be said is that binary logic can be applied where it can be applied and cannot be applied where it cannot be applied.
Most of the difficult issues we discuss in philosophy are metaphysical issues - they relate to the underlying assumptions we bring to the discussion. Metaphysical issues; like free will vs. determinism and the nature of reality, do not have true or false answers. They have no truth value. They are merely more or less useful for dealing with particular issues.
Yes. That's why theoretical Philosophy, as contrasted with empirical Science, has not made much measurable progress over the centuries.
We still debate some of the same questions that Plato addressed in his writings. What progress we find in the evolution of Philosophy results mostly from the discoveries of Science, which gives us new technical terms, with which to discuss the same old mysteries, such as Body/Soul. Today, we can use theories of Information to find commonalities of Mind & Body ; freewill & determinism, etc. Those topics are still "difficult" and mysterious, but with our modern understanding of how reality works on a fundamental level, we can look at those ancient topics from new perspectives.
Our conclusions from such observations, still have no absolute True/False values, but they do offer some relative values in specified contexts, especially situations that are unique to modern times, and that would have sounded like fairy tales to the ancient Greeks. To me, that's philosophical progress. :smile:
Yes. That's why theoretical Philosophy, as contrasted with empirical Science, has not made much measurable progress over the centuries...We still debate some of the same questions that Plato addressed in his writings.
I don't think that making progress is the point. Philosophical, metaphysical, issues are intended to be basic, foundational. What's to progress? It's the application of those principles that needs to progress to address changes in the world, e.g. science. That's the problem, as I see it, not that metaphysics hasn't advanced, but that people continue to mistake it for concrete, universal, irreducible, eternal, unchangeable reality.
Those topics are still "difficult" and mysterious, but with our modern understanding of how reality works on a fundamental level, we can look at those ancient topics from new perspectives.
Maybe... Sort of... Wait, no. I changed my mind. Free will vs. determinism was never difficult and mysterious. Philosophers made it so. Science has changed. The fundamentals of metaphysics have not. Which is a good thing. Hmm... Do I believe that? Not sure.
Look before you leap is a good heuristic.
He who hesitates is lost is a good heuristic.
Are those simply true or false?
Viruses are not life forms.
True or false?
If any of these is the case then they are true. If they are not the case they are false. 'Look before you leap' is a saying and does not have this kind of truth value. I don't know what 'trusting people is a problem' means.
I don't know if I'd call this "logic" as is understood technically.
The weather may be cold for me but hot for you. This is a fine book for me but meaningless to you.
On to more weighty topics:
Over 5 million people have died during Covid.
One view, which is accurate, would say that this is quite a high number of people. And more are dying.
On another view, this is actually not that many, compared to other viruses which are much more lethal.
And so on.
Ennui ElucidatorOctober 05, 2021 at 19:12#6042040 likes
So I wasn't going to comment, but then this article kept showing up in my suggested reading. I happen to be a fan of Graham Priest and once upon a time he briefly participated in the old forums as a guest philosopher. This particular article is super accessible.
In short form, there are lots of truth values out there besides true and false (some of which are useful in specific applications such as data analysis). Here is a discussion of some of it SEP on Truth Values. A major issue with rejecting the LNC is something called explosion. This objection is as simple as "anything can be proven from a contradiction" and is demonstrated by "negation introduction" and similar forms of indirect proofs. Based on logic as traditionally conceived, permitting something to be both true and false at the same time is a major no no.
As a historical aside, the problem of future contingents has been around since Aristotle and serves as an easy demonstration that our thinking is impoverished by imagining that any proposition must be true or false, but not both, at every moment.
I can add more if anyone wants.
dimosthenis9October 05, 2021 at 19:24#6042080 likes
Our statements are always being judged by their truth. And when we say truth, we obviously mean "human truth". Which is by nature - definition limited.
So every judgment based in such criteria should be limited too.
So yeah it is possible something to be true or false at the same time, since we can never be sure about the absolute Truth!
But these misunderstandings-problems, imo, can be crucial reduced by using the proper and careful wording in each statement we make.
That is not a true or false question. That is a question of subjective taste. However if you wrote: I like Brussel sprouts; true or false? - you might be onto something.
But everything depends on definitions. You wrote it yourself with Sorite's paradox. What is the use of insisting on binary logic if I cannot apply it in many cases? In politics there are many questions where binary logic is of no use. Is the pay of a particular worker fair? Yes or no?
Where is binary logic inapplicable?
Do not fault binary logic for the errors in our conceptual schema. You mentioned fairness as regards pay. Be precise as to what you mean by fairness and it's all good, bivalent logic is perfectly apt.
Do not fault binary logic for the errors in our conceptual schema. You mentioned fairness as regards pay. Be precise as to what you mean by fairness and it's all good, bivalent logic is perfectly apt.
You need an additional assumption to decide the question. It is not immediately clear whether the answer is true or false.
Another example: Does the tidal flat belong to the land or to the sea? I think fuzzy logic is appropriate here.
I do not understand the question. Obviously, there is sometimes water and sometimes land. So I can't say it's either sea or land
Let's stick to classic examples then. I recall reading fuzzy logic back in my early 20's. I must confess it all went over my head but one thing I do remember is fuziness us about grey areas which in philosophy is vagueness.
One very good example of a fuzzy/vague concept is tallness/shortness. However, once we fix a particular height as a cut-off point, the vagueness/fuziness disappears.
Two things to consider:
1. Adapt logic to our conceptual schema: Vagueness is part of our language. Develop fuzzy logic.
2. Adapt our conceptual schema to binary logic: Use precising definitions. Keep binary logic.
One very good example of a fuzzy/vague concept is tallness/shortness. However, once we fix a particular height as a cut-off point, the vagueness/fuziness disappears.
How exactly are you going to determine the cut-off point? One thousandth of an inch?
Then true and false depends on the hairstyle.
Welkin RogueOctober 06, 2021 at 09:00#6044020 likes
One very good example of a fuzzy/vague concept is tallness/shortness. However, once we fix a particular height as a cut-off point, the vagueness/fuziness disappears.
Two things to consider:
1. Adapt logic to our conceptual schema: Vagueness is part of our language. Develop fuzzy logic.
2. Adapt our conceptual schema to binary logic: Use precising definitions. Keep binary logic.
You seem to be saying that we can choose whether our concepts are fuzzy or not.
If we choose for them to be fuzzy, then, it seems to me, we face a further choice: we can reject LNC or we can reject bivalence (inclusive).
If so, then whether the fundamental principles of logic are true or not is a choice.
Is it possible for things to be both true and false at the same time or neither true or false at the same time? Or must things be either true or false at any given time?
My tentative view is that it is indeed a kind of choice whether LNC is true or not. You cannot prove it.
If I chose to reject it, don't tell me that I am entangled in a performative contradiction! All I will have said is that it is not the case that ~(~P&P). That is, I have denied the LNC itself. So I admit that it could also be true. We don't know if it's true yet. You can argue for it being true. Fine. But that doesn't exclude it's being false, on my view if I reject it. Even if I did concede that it is true, I can also maintain that it is false.
There's a paper by Fogelin (Why Obey the Laws of Logic? (2002)) where he tries to argue that rejecting LNC deprives one of the ability to make assertions and denials. I don't think his argument works. Rejecting LNC is rejecting that it must be the case that (P&~P) is false. This is not to reject that for any proposition P, (P&~P).
Another example: Does the tidal flat belong to the land or to the sea? I think fuzzy logic is appropriate here.
I'm jumping into the middle of this conversation, so apologies if I missed something, but isn't there a third option: "Tidal Flat is shared between land & sea". I.e., the question is wrong.
Alkis PiskasOctober 06, 2021 at 15:02#6044520 likes
Good point.
BTW, your question "Do Brussels sprouts taste good?" calls for a "Yes or no" answer. "True or false?" is asked on statements, not questions. So. you should say e.g. "Brussels sprouts taste good. True or false?" And, of course, there's no meaning in asking such a thing in this case, as you let it be understood.
Alkis PiskasOctober 06, 2021 at 15:29#6044590 likes
Is it possible for things to be both true and false at the same time or neither true or false at the same time? Or must things be either true or false at any given time?
First of all, I believe you should specify what "things" you are talking about. Because "apples" are "things" and "true" or "false" cannot be applied to them! Therefore, I have to assume that you mean "statements" (or something similar).
Then, I'm afraid you have not exhausted all the possible cases of "true" and/or "false"! :smile:
In order for any of these options to have any meaning, the "thing" that they apply to must be a fact or a hypothesis or something similar. That is, something that can be proved true or false. All other "things", which are not facts and which form the vast majority, cannot be answered as "true" or "false": preferences, opinions, beliefs, etc. "Apples are tasty", "This movie is good", "You should see his face!", etc. etc. There's no meaning in asking "True or false" to any of these statements, is there?
So, there's at least one more possibility: cases where "neither true nor false makes sense!" :grin:
Alkis PiskasOctober 06, 2021 at 15:50#6044630 likes
Right. This statement applies to a fact as I myself indicated. But @TiredThinker has not cleeared this up. He referred to "things" in general. Which is a mistake.
Because, I could paraphrase slightly your statement and say "x looks like a cat". This is not a fact and we cannot ask if it is true or false, can we? No contradiction, no anything. We cannot even say that it can be either true or false: it would just have no meaning, since "looks like" is not something that can be proved, anyway.
Alkis PiskasOctober 06, 2021 at 16:21#6044670 likes
Interesting. Can you give a practical example of that?
(I read about contradictions in your description but could not actually find any paradoxicality ...)
An apparent thing must be one thing or the other. Do I turn left or right to get to this specific destination?
What is the "apparent" thing in your example-question? That there's a fork on the road? What if there's a cross on the road and you have to select from among three roads? Where would the contradiction be? Yet, the problem is very similar in both cases ...
Alkis PiskasOctober 06, 2021 at 16:37#6044770 likes
My coffee is neither true nor false. The word "hello" is neither true nor false.
Good point. I assume you mean that these are "thigns" and "true" or "false" cannot be applied to them. Right, @TiredThinker made a mistake in not specifying what kind "things" he is talking about. Most probably he meant "statements" ...
Good point. I assume you mean that these are "thigns" and "true" or "false" cannot be applied to them. Right, TiredThinker made a mistake in not specifying what kind "things" he is talking about. Most probably he meant "statements" ...
What counts as a statement? Clearly not just any sentence.
Alkis PiskasOctober 06, 2021 at 17:00#6044840 likes
What counts as a statement? Clearly not just any sentence
Well, a statement is a definite or clear expression of something. And this is too general. So a complete sentence that expresses something may qualify. Anyway, this is besides the point, since the topic means about "things", which is even more general!
Interesting. Can you give a practical example of that?
(I read about contradictions in your description but could not actually find any paradoxicality ...)
I don't think so. I think I was more trying to be inspiring than offering solid logic. I am more an artist than a philosopher. Maybe I should confine myself to the Lounge. Quoting Alkis Piskas
What is the "apparent" thing in your example-question? That there's a fork on the road? What if there's a cross on the road and you have to select from among three roads? Where would the contradiction be? Yet, the problem is very similar in both cases ...
My lawyer tells me I shouldn't answer this question.
TiredThinkerOctober 06, 2021 at 18:44#6045020 likes
Made me think of the latest vsauce video when you mentioned that paradox.
TiredThinkerOctober 06, 2021 at 19:10#6045040 likes
When I was asking about true or false, true and false, and neither true nor false I was referring to statements. Things that are objective and not opinions. I was watching a video in which the talker was saying sometimes things are neither or both true and false at the same time. Particularly in reference to more eastern philosophy. I assume in the west we prefer things to be more strictly true or false?
From what I have read here so far I am assuming the statements that aren't well defined are maybe the problem more than whether or not it is strictly true or false? What if all statements are made by and evaluated by the same person so different vantage points don't become an issue?
dimosthenis9October 06, 2021 at 20:16#6045230 likes
From what I have read here so far I am assuming the statements that aren't well defined are maybe the problem more than whether or not it is strictly true or false?
Perhaps not. That depends on who's pointing. And some modern philosophers have developed a case of Physics Envy, on the assumption that Philosophy is supposed to make some kind of progress. But then, Postmodern philosophers have gone to the opposite extreme, and denied that there is any objective True/False --- it's all political. But traditionally, philosophers have at least hoped to get "closer to truth". In which case, 80% truth value may be close enough for practical purposes. :cool:
Free will vs. determinism was never difficult and mysterious. Philosophers made it so.
I wouldn't blame the mystery on philosophers. They merely accepted the challenge of explaining why some of us feel free to choose, even in the face of scientific evidence that the world is strictly determined by initial conditions and natural laws. In fact, Freewill is not a physical problem, it's a moral quandary, And flakey philosophers fee free to foray where angels fear to tread. :gasp:
Alkis PiskasOctober 07, 2021 at 10:32#6047610 likes
I think I was more trying to be inspiring than offering solid logic. I am more an artist than a philosopher. Maybe I should confine myself to the Lounge.
Reply to Nickolasgaspar Or the final judgment is not a binary yes, no, true false. IOW we could decide that viruses are something in between a lifeform and not a lifeform. That it would be wrong to categorize it as one and not the other.
Reply to TiredThinker yes it is possible for something to be true and false at the same time. Because of relativity of a state or condition to an observer.
Consider a 6 painted on the ground and two observers standing on the opposite side of the symbol. It is true that observer A sees a 6 and it is true that observer B sees a 9. From their perspective the opposite observers claim is false. From their personally logic/ observation this is true.
The reality of course is that it depends on the perspective. It is “spatially relativistic”.
Similarly we can think in terms of temporality. A civilisation observing earth from 20,000 light years away sees a planet populated by a few, unsophisticated humans with little technology and no civilisation. The claim that “planet earth is populated by 8 billion humans with sophisticated technology and integrated globalised societies” would to them be false in this moment based off observations but we know from living here that it is true.
If any of these is the case then they are true. If they are not the case they are false. 'Look before you leap' is a saying and does not have this kind of truth value. I don't know what 'trusting people is a problem' means.
A saying is an assertion. Can you explain what assertions are not under the purview of true and false? As far as 'being the case' they are somewhat true, somewhat false. And an assertion, at least according to many, such as 'a virus is a lifeform' is neither true nor false. It has within it a category 'lifeform' that has been treated for a long term as part of a binary pair, but it may not be a binary pair, there may be combinations or a spectrum.
One should trust people.
[a better formulation, perhaps]
I think a good case can be made that this is not a nonsense statement, but also is neither true nor false.
An electron is a particle.
Some might say so. Others might say that is a useful sentence but not entirely true. Others would say that it is partly false.
I don't see why every statement has to be either true or false, when statements could include some truth and some falsehood. And also given that language is, obviously, human made and may have categories that are confused or openended or seem part of binary pairs but are not.
NickolasgasparOctober 07, 2021 at 18:48#6049020 likes
Reply to Bylaw -"Or the final judgment is not a binary yes, no, true false. IOW we could decide that viruses are something in between a lifeform and not a lifeform. That it would be wrong to categorize it as one and not the other. "
Correct. As I said there are cases where we don't have the facts to make a judge for the truth value of a claim.
A saying is an assertion. Can you explain what assertions are not under the purview of true and false?
I'm not a philosopher so if there's a specialist answer, I don't know it. But to say some statements are neither true or false, therefore they are both seems to express a bland superfluity. What is gained? My intuition on this is that many of these statements are incomplete or ambiguous and therefore outside of the scope of any true or false assessment.
TiredThinkerOctober 09, 2021 at 05:44#6052940 likes
That is a matter of a proper statement. I am assuming asking the right question is always the issue. A 6 and a 9 are the same shape so if the statement is whether or not it is this shape than it would be true so long as you don't get too specific on a meaning a particular number may have.
Alkis PiskasOctober 09, 2021 at 17:35#6053720 likes
Reply to TiredThinker
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/604459 (3 days ago)
But to say some statements are neither true or false, therefore they are both seems to express a bland superfluity.
I think statements can be ambiguous and therefore cannot be neatly categorizes as true or false. I think some statements can be nonsense and again true and false are off the table. But then I think there are many sentences that are not, for example, 100% true, that it would be false to say they were false.
Comments (66)
For any proposition p,
Either p is true OR p is false [principle of bivalence]
Didn't you read my question?
? C.B. Murphy
The law of non-contradiction appears to work "opposite" when applied to relative vs essential truth. An apparent thing must be one thing or the other. Do I turn left or right to get to this specific destination?
But if we are talking about the "ultimate" "destination", as it were, its not confined to left, right, up or down, forward or backward. Above or beneath. Its not everywhere, nor is it nowhere, nor is it both, neither, nor both and neither, nor neither both nor neither?
Any answer that is limited is limited. It can't be a complete answer, and thus falls short. The answer must be infinite to be fully true. Yet no answer is truly infinite, is it? Or is everything complete?
So we are limited to saying what the absolute truth is not? Or is there no real limitation?
In summary? Because the absolute truth is one, not two (any two must share a single reality or else each could not be grouped together), therefor any statement which says 'two' would contradict the truth of 'one'. Therefor all dualistic 'this, not that' statements are ultimately not true. Even though they may be pragmatically true. Eg, we may have to turn left.
I did. I gave it some thought and decided we should start from the basics.
A proposition being both true and false is a contradiction. I gave the example of how if x is a cat, it's impossible that x is not a cat (x is cat is true and x is a cat is false). There are three important principles at play here:
1. The law of noncontradiction. (can a proposition p be both true and false i.e. not true)
2. The law of the excluded middle (a proposition or its negation is true)
3. Principle of bivalence (a propositions can be either true or false and nothing else)
So,
If a proposition can be true and false, we have to look at 1 and 2
If a proposition can be neither true nor false, we have to examine 3
My coffee is neither true nor false. The word "hello" is neither true nor false.
Only claims(premises) and arguments can be true or not true in our world.
So a true claim is the one that is in agreement with current facts (describes them accurately).
An implication of this is that a claim may be true according to the current available facts but missing facts might mean it can ultimately be a false claim.
Since we have no access to all facts or Ultimate or Absolute claims...we only can work on what is currently available.
So a claim can never be true or not true at the same time because it is a judgment based on facts at that specific moment.
Hindsight is just a meta analysis of a claim with facts that do not belong at the same temporal point.
What if you talk about the evolutionary ancestors of cats? One researcher says that's already a cat, another says that's not a cat yet.
Love Brussels sprouts. So - true, true, true.
This is my old refrain. Most things that get people, at least philosophers, excited are neither true nor false. Examples:
This is also the old Reductive versus Holistic refrain. If you look at particular things or events, each can be evaluated as Good or Bad, in the specified context : relative to me, to you, to everybody. But if you look at everything-in-general, the values are not so Black & White.
That's why my personal Holistic philosophy is summarized in the BothAnd Principle. From that perspective, it's hard to get too excited about any single example of the duality of reality. It's characterized by neither of the extremes (all-good or all-bad), but a moderate mixture of both. Otherwise life in the real world would be heavenly or hellish. So, the job of Philosophy (Wisdom) is to evaluate in terms of relative values : more-or-less Good or Bad ; True or False ; Real or Ideal. The Middle Path, the Way of Tao. :smile:
Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
I posted this in the Knowledge of Good and Evil thread earlier today:
Quoting T Clark
But this is a bit different from the point I was trying to make in my post in this thread. I have a broken record refrain, for those who remember what that means. It goes like this - Most of the difficult issues we discuss in philosophy are metaphysical issues - they relate to the underlying assumptions we bring to the discussion. Metaphysical issues; like free will vs. determinism and the nature of reality, do not have true or false answers. They have no truth value. They are merely more or less useful for dealing with particular issues.
It's the sorites paradox.
Between each ancestor-descendant pair there really is not much of a difference to deserve separate species categories but in the long run, over many generations, differences accumulate and amplify and a point is reached when species distinction becomes necessary.
The researcher who claims that the forbears of cats are cats and the other researcher who makes the opposite claim are talking past each other - their meaning of "ancestor" is not the same. In the case of the former, the ancestor is exactly like the modern cat in physical and behavioral characteristics but in the latter's case, the ancestor is something else entirely.
Not a true contradiction - a definitional issue at best, confusion at worst.
People are angry.
Trusting people is a problem.
Are those binarily True or False?
Look before you leap is a good heuristic.
He who hesitates is lost is a good heuristic.
Are those simply true or false?
Viruses are not life forms.
True or false?
Here also:
Viruses are lifeforms.
Facts and expert opinion currently are mixed.
But everything depends on definitions. You wrote it yourself with Sorite's paradox. What is the use of insisting on binary logic if I cannot apply it in many cases? In politics there are many questions where binary logic is of no use. Is the pay of a particular worker fair? Yes or no?
Quoting TheMadFool
1. Item number 2 is true
2. The number of true statements in this list is not 2.
3. Puppies are evil co-conspirators with aliens from Haley's comet secretly scheming to steal your precious bodily fluids.
3 cannot be false; because if it is, 2 can neither be true nor false, and 1 be neither true nor false. That violates the principle of bivalence. Therefore, beware the puppies.
1. True
2. True
3. False
Corrected.
You have a bit of a misconception here. Boolean logic is not used to answer questions but to validify statements - the answers to the questions. Epistemology of course plays a role in this and so - knowledge being something subjective and personal - whether a statement is true or false may differ from person to person.
A system of logic mustn't contradict itself within it's own framework. There's no need to be consistent across different frameworks though.
The statement "It's 12pm in the USA" doesn't contradict "It's 12am in China" because the logic systems use a different framework (in this case being the timezone).
Person A may say "Trump is an asshole" but can not say "Trump is a nice guy" at the same time because that would be a contradiction within the framework.
Person B may say "Trump is a nice guy" regardless of Person A because their opinions are different frameworks.
That's not a great example. Let's say person A does indeed say:
"Trump is an asshole, and is a nice guy."
Does that mean Person A said something contractory? Nope, and that's SolarWind's point. Ah, but he did make a contradiction, in some framework. Okay, but is Person A using that framework? All you can say is essentially, Person A contradicted himself, if he was in a framework where that's a contradiction.
And that is, as @TheMadFool pointed out an issue of definition. Language is a framework shared amongst all humans. Somewhere humanity agreed upon some arbitrary sequences of noises/signs to have a certain meaning. There are also rules of how these words need to be ordered and structured to make any sense. It's defined as such:
"the principal method of human communication, consisting of words used in a structured and conventional way and conveyed by speech, writing, or gesture."
And if I do not adhere to this framework of language, then I am simply not using language.
You may say, nothing is stopping me from saying something like "The Am philoso I I am you philosoph I the you the".
But this doesn't make any sense. It doesn't pertain to structure and convention. It's not language. I'm just making random noises which happen to have a meaning in the framework of language (which I'm not using).
Likewise, in the framework of language, as per definition of the words "Trump is an asshole and is a nice guy" doesn't make any sense. So this too, isn't even language. It's just a sequence of signs that seems to convey meaning - but doesn't.
In the end, all that remains to be said is that binary logic can be applied where it can be applied and cannot be applied where it cannot be applied.
Truly binary. :lol:
Yes. That's why theoretical Philosophy, as contrasted with empirical Science, has not made much measurable progress over the centuries.
We still debate some of the same questions that Plato addressed in his writings. What progress we find in the evolution of Philosophy results mostly from the discoveries of Science, which gives us new technical terms, with which to discuss the same old mysteries, such as Body/Soul. Today, we can use theories of Information to find commonalities of Mind & Body ; freewill & determinism, etc. Those topics are still "difficult" and mysterious, but with our modern understanding of how reality works on a fundamental level, we can look at those ancient topics from new perspectives.
Our conclusions from such observations, still have no absolute True/False values, but they do offer some relative values in specified contexts, especially situations that are unique to modern times, and that would have sounded like fairy tales to the ancient Greeks. To me, that's philosophical progress. :smile:
I don't think that making progress is the point. Philosophical, metaphysical, issues are intended to be basic, foundational. What's to progress? It's the application of those principles that needs to progress to address changes in the world, e.g. science. That's the problem, as I see it, not that metaphysics hasn't advanced, but that people continue to mistake it for concrete, universal, irreducible, eternal, unchangeable reality.
Quoting Gnomon
Maybe... Sort of... Wait, no. I changed my mind. Free will vs. determinism was never difficult and mysterious. Philosophers made it so. Science has changed. The fundamentals of metaphysics have not. Which is a good thing. Hmm... Do I believe that? Not sure.
If any of these is the case then they are true. If they are not the case they are false. 'Look before you leap' is a saying and does not have this kind of truth value. I don't know what 'trusting people is a problem' means.
I don't know if I'd call this "logic" as is understood technically.
The weather may be cold for me but hot for you. This is a fine book for me but meaningless to you.
On to more weighty topics:
Over 5 million people have died during Covid.
One view, which is accurate, would say that this is quite a high number of people. And more are dying.
On another view, this is actually not that many, compared to other viruses which are much more lethal.
And so on.
Graham Priest on Beyond True and False
On a less approachable note, see paraconsistent logic and dialethia.
In short form, there are lots of truth values out there besides true and false (some of which are useful in specific applications such as data analysis). Here is a discussion of some of it SEP on Truth Values. A major issue with rejecting the LNC is something called explosion. This objection is as simple as "anything can be proven from a contradiction" and is demonstrated by "negation introduction" and similar forms of indirect proofs. Based on logic as traditionally conceived, permitting something to be both true and false at the same time is a major no no.
As a historical aside, the problem of future contingents has been around since Aristotle and serves as an easy demonstration that our thinking is impoverished by imagining that any proposition must be true or false, but not both, at every moment.
I can add more if anyone wants.
Our statements are always being judged by their truth. And when we say truth, we obviously mean "human truth". Which is by nature - definition limited.
So every judgment based in such criteria should be limited too.
So yeah it is possible something to be true or false at the same time, since we can never be sure about the absolute Truth!
But these misunderstandings-problems, imo, can be crucial reduced by using the proper and careful wording in each statement we make.
That is not a true or false question. That is a question of subjective taste. However if you wrote: I like Brussel sprouts; true or false? - you might be onto something.
Where is binary logic inapplicable?
Do not fault binary logic for the errors in our conceptual schema. You mentioned fairness as regards pay. Be precise as to what you mean by fairness and it's all good, bivalent logic is perfectly apt.
You need an additional assumption to decide the question. It is not immediately clear whether the answer is true or false.
Another example: Does the tidal flat belong to the land or to the sea? I think fuzzy logic is appropriate here.
So?
Quoting SolarWind
Define "tidal flat".
OK, my example was bad.
The tidal flats have water at high tide and land at low tide.
If this definition generates fuziness then, the fuziness is in the definition. Amend the definition and the fuziness disappears.
Can you also give me a statement that brings out the fuzziness in the term "tidal flat"?
I do not understand the question. Obviously, there is sometimes water and sometimes land. So I can't say it's either sea or land.
The definition of tidal flat is "essentially horizontal and commonly muddy or marshy land that is covered and uncovered by the rise and fall of tides"
There is no fuzziness here. Tidal flat is land.
Let's stick to classic examples then. I recall reading fuzzy logic back in my early 20's. I must confess it all went over my head but one thing I do remember is fuziness us about grey areas which in philosophy is vagueness.
One very good example of a fuzzy/vague concept is tallness/shortness. However, once we fix a particular height as a cut-off point, the vagueness/fuziness disappears.
Two things to consider:
1. Adapt logic to our conceptual schema: Vagueness is part of our language. Develop fuzzy logic.
2. Adapt our conceptual schema to binary logic: Use precising definitions. Keep binary logic.
Which option we go for would depend on...?
You can also call it "Wadden Sea".
"Wadden Sea" describes a specific geographical location.
Wadden Sea is tidal flat. Tidal flat is not Wadden Sea.
How exactly are you going to determine the cut-off point? One thousandth of an inch?
Then true and false depends on the hairstyle.
You seem to be saying that we can choose whether our concepts are fuzzy or not.
If we choose for them to be fuzzy, then, it seems to me, we face a further choice: we can reject LNC or we can reject bivalence (inclusive).
If so, then whether the fundamental principles of logic are true or not is a choice.
Quoting TiredThinker
My tentative view is that it is indeed a kind of choice whether LNC is true or not. You cannot prove it.
If I chose to reject it, don't tell me that I am entangled in a performative contradiction! All I will have said is that it is not the case that ~(~P&P). That is, I have denied the LNC itself. So I admit that it could also be true. We don't know if it's true yet. You can argue for it being true. Fine. But that doesn't exclude it's being false, on my view if I reject it. Even if I did concede that it is true, I can also maintain that it is false.
There's a paper by Fogelin (Why Obey the Laws of Logic? (2002)) where he tries to argue that rejecting LNC deprives one of the ability to make assertions and denials. I don't think his argument works. Rejecting LNC is rejecting that it must be the case that (P&~P) is false. This is not to reject that for any proposition P, (P&~P).
I'm jumping into the middle of this conversation, so apologies if I missed something, but isn't there a third option: "Tidal Flat is shared between land & sea". I.e., the question is wrong.
Good point.
BTW, your question "Do Brussels sprouts taste good?" calls for a "Yes or no" answer. "True or false?" is asked on statements, not questions. So. you should say e.g. "Brussels sprouts taste good. True or false?" And, of course, there's no meaning in asking such a thing in this case, as you let it be understood.
Quoting TiredThinker
First of all, I believe you should specify what "things" you are talking about. Because "apples" are "things" and "true" or "false" cannot be applied to them! Therefore, I have to assume that you mean "statements" (or something similar).
Then, I'm afraid you have not exhausted all the possible cases of "true" and/or "false"! :smile:
In order for any of these options to have any meaning, the "thing" that they apply to must be a fact or a hypothesis or something similar. That is, something that can be proved true or false. All other "things", which are not facts and which form the vast majority, cannot be answered as "true" or "false": preferences, opinions, beliefs, etc. "Apples are tasty", "This movie is good", "You should see his face!", etc. etc. There's no meaning in asking "True or false" to any of these statements, is there?
So, there's at least one more possibility: cases where "neither true nor false makes sense!" :grin:
Right. This statement applies to a fact as I myself indicated. But @TiredThinker has not cleeared this up. He referred to "things" in general. Which is a mistake.
Because, I could paraphrase slightly your statement and say "x looks like a cat". This is not a fact and we cannot ask if it is true or false, can we? No contradiction, no anything. We cannot even say that it can be either true or false: it would just have no meaning, since "looks like" is not something that can be proved, anyway.
Interesting. Can you give a practical example of that?
(I read about contradictions in your description but could not actually find any paradoxicality ...)
Quoting Yohan
What is the "apparent" thing in your example-question? That there's a fork on the road? What if there's a cross on the road and you have to select from among three roads? Where would the contradiction be? Yet, the problem is very similar in both cases ...
Good point. I assume you mean that these are "thigns" and "true" or "false" cannot be applied to them. Right, @TiredThinker made a mistake in not specifying what kind "things" he is talking about. Most probably he meant "statements" ...
What counts as a statement? Clearly not just any sentence.
Well, a statement is a definite or clear expression of something. And this is too general. So a complete sentence that expresses something may qualify. Anyway, this is besides the point, since the topic means about "things", which is even more general!
I don't think so. I think I was more trying to be inspiring than offering solid logic. I am more an artist than a philosopher. Maybe I should confine myself to the Lounge.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
My lawyer tells me I shouldn't answer this question.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE
Made me think of the latest vsauce video when you mentioned that paradox.
From what I have read here so far I am assuming the statements that aren't well defined are maybe the problem more than whether or not it is strictly true or false? What if all statements are made by and evaluated by the same person so different vantage points don't become an issue?
Exactly.
Quoting TiredThinker
How is that?
So we don't have the facts to make a final judgment!
Perhaps not. That depends on who's pointing. And some modern philosophers have developed a case of Physics Envy, on the assumption that Philosophy is supposed to make some kind of progress. But then, Postmodern philosophers have gone to the opposite extreme, and denied that there is any objective True/False --- it's all political. But traditionally, philosophers have at least hoped to get "closer to truth". In which case, 80% truth value may be close enough for practical purposes. :cool:
Quoting T Clark
I wouldn't blame the mystery on philosophers. They merely accepted the challenge of explaining why some of us feel free to choose, even in the face of scientific evidence that the world is strictly determined by initial conditions and natural laws. In fact, Freewill is not a physical problem, it's a moral quandary, And flakey philosophers fee free to foray where angels fear to tread. :gasp:
Quoting Yohan
Ha, ha! Nice! :grin:
Quoting Yohan
:grin: ... This place desperately needs this kind of stuff!!
Consider a 6 painted on the ground and two observers standing on the opposite side of the symbol. It is true that observer A sees a 6 and it is true that observer B sees a 9. From their perspective the opposite observers claim is false. From their personally logic/ observation this is true.
The reality of course is that it depends on the perspective. It is “spatially relativistic”.
Similarly we can think in terms of temporality. A civilisation observing earth from 20,000 light years away sees a planet populated by a few, unsophisticated humans with little technology and no civilisation. The claim that “planet earth is populated by 8 billion humans with sophisticated technology and integrated globalised societies” would to them be false in this moment based off observations but we know from living here that it is true.
One should trust people.
[a better formulation, perhaps]
I think a good case can be made that this is not a nonsense statement, but also is neither true nor false.
An electron is a particle.
Some might say so. Others might say that is a useful sentence but not entirely true. Others would say that it is partly false.
I don't see why every statement has to be either true or false, when statements could include some truth and some falsehood. And also given that language is, obviously, human made and may have categories that are confused or openended or seem part of binary pairs but are not.
-"Or the final judgment is not a binary yes, no, true false. IOW we could decide that viruses are something in between a lifeform and not a lifeform. That it would be wrong to categorize it as one and not the other. "
Correct. As I said there are cases where we don't have the facts to make a judge for the truth value of a claim.
Agree.
Quoting Bylaw
I'm not a philosopher so if there's a specialist answer, I don't know it. But to say some statements are neither true or false, therefore they are both seems to express a bland superfluity. What is gained? My intuition on this is that many of these statements are incomplete or ambiguous and therefore outside of the scope of any true or false assessment.
That is a matter of a proper statement. I am assuming asking the right question is always the issue. A 6 and a 9 are the same shape so if the statement is whether or not it is this shape than it would be true so long as you don't get too specific on a meaning a particular number may have.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/604459 (3 days ago)