X is red, x is not red.
Simple. There are millions of examples of this.
Eating a peanut a day is healthy, eating a peanut kills
I can go on and on…
Well, assuming that you meant for the capital X and the small x to be the same referent, those are certainly contrary statements. But now, without adding special extraneous and biased interpretation of the words or sentences, explain how both statements can be true … and true to what?
Live and learn James …
Take a humble pill from a person you called psychotic beyond help in another thread.
That’s what color blindness is.
A) No, I did not.
B) you can’t answer the question?
You called me a true schizophrenic.
And yes, for some people red is red and for other people red us green.
No. I said that your thread was for those inexperienced with true schizophrenia. And being “helpless” is entirely an issue of who is on hand to help, isn’t it.
So you don’t believe in objective reality? Everything is merely whatever someone thinks it is regardless of whatever anyone else thinks it is? “All things are relative”? There is no actual truth?
James, I’ve been pretty clear if you read my posts, I said in many cases simply stating x and not x is not always a verifier of truth and in many cases it is.
You’re starting to be a bit of a butt about my posts to you, maybe it’s just misunderstanding, but you pride yourself on understanding.
I’ll ask one more time:
So you don’t believe in objective reality? Everything is merely whatever someone thinks it is regardless of whatever anyone else thinks it is? “All things are relative”? There is no actual truth?
Yes or no?
Sure there’s absolute truth, if rods and cones exist in a certain way, red is red, if a different way it’s grey or green.
My point is that simply stating x and not x, is not in itself a verifier of truth from the law of contradiction.
Color …Wavelength…Frequency
green…495–570 nm…526–606 THz
yellow…570–590 nm…508–526 THz
orange…590–620 nm…484–508 THz
red…620–750 nm…400–484 THz
The color red has a specific EMR frequency range noted in the table above. When someone says that an object, X, is “red”, he is saying that the object is emitting or reflecting primarily the frequency specified in that chart. Regardless of what the person has said, the object X either is or isn’t primarily emitting that frequency.
So when a person says that the object, X, is “not red”, he is saying that it is not emitting that specified range of frequency, perhaps one of the other ranges. But if in reality it is, he is either lying, colorblind (seeing colors incorrectly), or using an alternate language.
So assuming that he isn’t using an alternate language (breaking the simple rules of communication - “a consistent language”), when he says that X is red, he is either correct or incorrect. And if correct, then saying that X is not red is incorrect. And vsvrsa.
Not knowing whether X is emitting the frequency range called “red” is not relevant and certainly does not make the statement “X is and is not red” a true statement or a non-contradicting statement. The only truth and non-contradicting statement in the case of not knowing is “I don’t know if X is red”. The colorblind person doesn’t know what color X is but perhaps believes that he does, being tricked by his senses.
So I see no means for you to come up with two contradicting statements and have them both true. Can you provide a different example?
I used another one…
Some people are deathly allergic to peanuts, and peanuts are " healthy "… This the the same as red is not red: which is logically consistent …,
Peanuts are healthy and not healthy.
I agree that the statement “peanuts are healthy” is false. Peanuts are “sometimes, for some people, healthy” is true.
Thus the statement “Peanuts are unhealthy” has the same issue. It is a false statement because it is in-comprehensive (defying the second angel).
James, you do realize comprehensive and comprehensible mean two very different things???
Maybe you should use both words instead of conflating them when you see fit, and maybe you should find a way to elaborate them.
Or perhaps you should observe that I have only used one meaning. Can you not distinguish them?
) Comprehensive = complete in scope and detail
) Comprehensible = capable of being completely understood in scope and detail
I haven’t been speaking of the ability to understand or be understood. The statements that are of the form “Peanuts are (or are not) healthy” are not comprehensive, not complete in detail, and thus not “truth”, but merely a suggestion that is perhaps often the particular case but sometimes not.
Logically speaking, if a statement is not true in any circumstance other than alteration of language, then it is not true, meaning that it is not always true. Usually the circumstances are not mentioned, thus misleading the reader (due to defying the second angel - comprehensiveness = completeness).
So this isn’t an issue of contradiction, but of incompleteness or in-comprehensiveness.
So let’s just take godel as an example…
Peano logic is incomplete, therefor we can add???
According to the law of non contradiction…
Either we cannot add, or the incompleteness is false.
At what level do we assume that we have reduced red is not red to a truth, rather than a visual translation of wave frequencies?
Sounds like a dumb idea, but okay…
I don’t really think that has anything to do with Godel, but…
Something being incomplete doesn’t mean that you can add. It means that there is something missing. But perhaps it must always be missing (Godel’s theory). The theory of Relativity is incomplete in that it cannot handle spinning objects. But one cannot add anything coherent to it to make it handle those objects. The theory merely has a limited useful scope, not completely (or accurately) mapping all reality. It will always be incomplete (and at least slightly erroneous).
I am pretty sure that there is no logical level where you can reduce “red is not red” to a truth. Why are you trying to?
The axioms for number theory where show to fold on themselves. We either need better axioms, or we cannot add.
And likewise, there are many instances where x is not x… Red is not red and peanuts are healthy and not healthy are two examples. We have something beyond there mere logical statement that PROVES that they are both true and that there’s more to simply saying x is not x is true is all instances.
There’s at least another variable there.
I don’t know who told you that theory, but I doubt it. I have been adding just fine for years.
Both of your examples have been proven on this thread to be incorrect examples. I have yet to see an example of your theory that “X is not X” can be a true statement.
I have yet to see a valid example.
As I said early on, if you have to add something to what is said, then what is said is not comprehensive enough to be called true and thus by default, is false. And if you have to add anything to the statement that “red is not red” in order to make it true, then as it stands, it is false.
You will never find a valid contradictory set of true statements anywhere. Playing with the wording/semantics to try to make them seem correct is just childishness.
You’re the one playing with the system.
Peanuts are healthy and not healthy is a true statement on the surface of it.
Somehow this bothers you, so you say, sometimes peanuts can be healthy…
And then accuse me of playing word games.
What you put forth was that x is not x can NEVER be true.
I refuted that.
Now you’re back pedaling instead of refining your construct.
Well, I made no promises about changing your mind. We both know that wasn’t going to happen. I am satisfied that I have sufficiently proven my point. You can continue to believe whatever lets you feel good.