The Law of Non-Contradiction: Explained and Debated

[@PhilosophyVibe]

For an introduction to philosophy, check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology book set available on Amazon: Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1 Volume 2 - Metaphysics mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2 Volume 3 - Ethics and Political Philosophy mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3

[@BiggieT04]

Two days ago, I had my last A-level philosophy exam, and genuinely, I don't think I could have done it without this channel. It has been an invaluable resource for me in the two years of my course, and I've very much enjoyed the vibe. Condensing topics into digestible ten minute videos is no mean feat, and you've done so expertly. Thank you for all the videos :)

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're very welcome, so glad we could help. Wishing you the best of luck in your exams.

[@jameskenney2644]

I’m thinking of taking philosophy for fun this next semester. Is it hard? Was it fun?

[@darcsyde345]

@@jameskenney2644late comment but I’m like 80% of the way through Intro and I’m really enjoying it. Can be hard to wrap your head around at times but if you’ve been watching this channel for a while, you’ll probably be fine

[@grayrecluse7496]

Philosophy is used for what, exactly? If you don't mind.

[@darcsyde345]

@@grayrecluse7496 it teaches you to understand complex arguments or dense material and take them apart piece by piece, which really could be used anywhere

[@Forex_Uncovered]

So basically, a thing cannot ‘be’ and ‘not be’ at the same time and in the same respect. Thanks for this great video! 🙌🏾

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome, thanks for watching.

[@horustrismegistus1017]

@@PhilosophyVibe The problem is that Teslas Vortex Mathematics of 369 mathematically proves that the singularity and the void are one. Yet they are logically mutually exclusive. The immovable object and the unstoppable force are also one. God both is and isn't and the only thing that oscillates the presence or absence is us, and that is contingent upon belief and disbelief. If we believe, it is. If we do not, it isn't. It's presence and departure are based on us just like the presence and departure of anger or sorrow. It all depends on what you focus on and believe. All truth is different lengths of temporary.

[@teacher1206]

I think the last example is falsely stated. You can love and hate someone at the same time. However, you cannot "love" and "not love" someone at the same time... So we could say that this law also applies to feelings and the whole of reality (as we perceive it at least) in general...

[@Fire_I_]

I think the same. The laws of logic are used as both means of distinguishing what is truth and what is falseness & as a form of belief system orientation, most probably, but in some cases also reveal sickness in some people's world perceptions. If someone asks "Why am I hating and loving the same being at the same time", then the person most likely has relationship issues to be resolved. Is it to??

[@adriennefo64]

The opposite of love is not hate it is indifference

[@siyiabrb8388]

I think that you are correct here, this is more a violation of LEM than LNC, in real life you can have two contrarian states at the same time, like hot and cold in a body of water.

[@lewisner]

I would say love and hate are variable concepts so they cannot be opposites.

[@Fire_I_]

@@lewisner I guess you mean that since both stem from passion they are the same emotion? And thus indifference is their respective opposite, or the lack of hate respective the lack of love. Why is there no term for this "lack of love" then? So, by this logic, night is not opposite to day because they are both phenomenon of daily rythm of 24h, so their opposite is evening, or something. Indifference is the opposite of care. To me indifference is to hate something, and that hate is to take action. What is important to know is that both hate and love are metaphysical concepts, and they fall into the religious category, since they are not possible to study empirically and thus become an issue of disbelieving or believing in them. An atheist or more common a materialist, would claim that love stems from synapses and hormones, while a believer say that they, hormones etc, in turn are triggered by uncontrolled forces, eg. spirits, heart, God, Devil etc. If one is inclined towards the former, then they have a juridical and moral issue, as we rightfully know. So, a creep's or pedophile's claim that since it's hormones directing this inclination they have, it also gives those the right to act, just as normal persons in the case if sexual relation would have. They claim that the notion of hate and love being opposite are old and should be reconsidered, yet its obvious that them being each others opposites is more valid an correct, and also to accept common sense and what has been learned from previous generations. Everything is not philosophically to change, you know.

[@sebastianleon2653]

I would say that loving and hating someone are not opposites or contradictory. You can feel love and hate for the same person, just like you can be afraid of something and be fascinated at the same time. The contradictory statements should be "I love this person" and "I don't love this person".

[@asyetundetermined]

Right. The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.

[@IamRigour]

"Emotions do not follow logical laws" Real!!!

[@lewisner]

"Fascinating Captain".

[@Shags-u5w]

Annnnd which woman "AHEM CLEARS THROAT" feminist would not argue with you on that 😅

[@Speaking101]

l totally agree when you say " Emotional state is not covered by the philosophical entity" that's a wonderful argument..nice!

[@TheSistaWarrior]

That last explanation negating emotions as a sound violation of logical non-contradiction was itself inconclusive. Emotional states seems to be examples of noncontradictions.

[@troyshrader3949]

I love this stuff you guys did a great job

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you :)

[@dasia7920]

You guys are the best!!!! I'm subcribed forever

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you!

[@supremelydivine6836]

Dude on the left got absolutely murdered in this debate

[@jakelm4256]

It applies to emotional states too. The love and hate example simply isn’t in the same respect.

[@mpen7873]

Thought provoking as always.

[@pedrozeni992]

Hello guys! Amazing job!!! I Loved it! I loved the discussion as well :D. however, I would argue in the end that it is indeed a "contradiction" or a cheating from the logic you were debating. Separate the emotion in a different realm would be they are not real 😅. Perhaps, keep it with the same proof considering as a priori truth, this would just mean we can't understand properly our emotion precisely because it's contradictory. I particularly take this as truth, and I would re think about my emotions to clarify in this way 😁. In other words, it's a problem of perception/misnterpretation, not a contradiction of the law.

[@ChisomOkolie12]

Thank you. God bless you🙏🏾

[@ashleypeat2355]

Isn't it dependant on the frame of reference? For example "It is daytime"... when?

[@aijazrasool8922]

This is the first video I watched here and it was really enthralling and engaging. Thanks.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome, glad you enjoyed.

[@raiyanahmadsaadi8220]

My favorite part of the video: "...and logical laws need not apply to emotional states." Fantastic!! But it is a shame a lot (and I mean A LoT!) of people around me does not understand this simple thing. edit: The time stamp was 8:10 i think.

[@darylkelly6077]

Good examples and video ,the only problem I have is the use of the word respect instead of aspect.

[@duffypratt]

Sidney Morgenbesser, a philosophy prof at Columbia, when asked whether he believed in the law of noncontradiction, said, “Well, I do and I don’t.”

[@IamRigour]

What, exactly, do you mean by "in the same respect"?

[@michaellangan4450]

What about the psychologcal state of 'ambivalence', would that be an exception to the law of non-contradiction?

[@navis5284]

Well done. Indubitable truth.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you.

[@rapidshai310]

Only think about sherdingerw cat and quantom phisycs that violet this law?

[@somebody1828]

The problem with this law is that we are human beings with personal perspectives and no matter how established a truth may seem, it may be debunked by other cultures at a later time. Most things if not everything we describe as reality or truth is an interpretation of our senses and intellect and therefore doesn't pass the law of non-contradiction.

[@shane3428]

There are plenty of things that are true independent of either your or my thinking it. The fact that 2+2=4 is a necessary truth. It’s true whether or not I’m here to think about or observe it. It’s true no matter what culture you’re in. And it’s true, at least in part, because it’s metaphysically impossible for it to be false. So, it’s true independent of any mind thinking about or observing… meaning my mind, yours, your mom’s, my uncle’s dog’s, amber heard’s, God’s, etc. There’s no way that it can be false. This is just one example of a truth that is independent of our interpretations and intellect. And there are more - not to mention the other sort of truths that can be deduced from the first sort of truths… whose truth value depends on the truth value of the first sort.

[@shane3428]

I really don’t know what you mean by “does not pass the law of noncontradiction.” What are you saying? The law is not a test. It’s a principle that is inescapable. It describes reality - how things ACTUAL are. We can’t help but abide by it. It is psychologically impossible for us to believe contradictory things *while realizing* that that’s what we’re doing. And, if you disagree saying… (A) Shane is wrong: We CAN believe contradictory things while realizing it. … then you imply that the following claim is false: (B) Shane is right: We CANNOT believe contradictory things while realizing it. And you imply this insofar as the truth of the first claim entails the falsity of the second claim. And it entails it because of principles like the law of non-contradiction…

[@somebody1828]

​@@shane3428 I did not critizise the law itself but the human capability to use it. Like in the example of "it's raining and it's not raining" both people can be right or wrong at the same time. They could also say "You're a liar because I know that it's raining." And it could escalate into a political debate for centuries with Millions of unnecessary deaths and lots of suffering. This is as real as it gets and both parties usually claim to thave the law of non-contradiction on their side. Even in science this law has limited use since there are other forces that often seem to be more important than the truth, like ideologies or profit. So what I am saying is that this law hasn't much practicability.

[@PabloSensei]

​@@somebody1828 isn't your example limited to empiricism?

[@somebody1828]

@@PabloSensei WDYM?

[@michaelm7901]

In the matter of statements of Instruction, like best method, Time and circumstance change what is true. Is this covered? Is it put in a category?

[@tylerwinter512]

I spent more time than I care to admit trying to disprove the law of non contradiction

[@stephanogoncalves1672]

The laws don't need to be extended to cover these examples, and that is because propositions are about MEANING rather than language. When a person says a statement, it usually does not explicitly put in that statement all of its meaning (like, "It is raining" actually means "It is raining in this place at this moment"). So considering the propositions are meanings automatically have the same effect of considering the principle of Aristotle of "same respect". I disagree with the final conclusion. Emotions fall on the cathegory of complex things composed by smaller parts. The smaller parts may be opposite without creating a contradiction in the whole. It is possible to have love and hate for the same person, but these are to minor components of a major feeling towards the person. It is as much contradictoy as a object that is black and white at the same time, for having black parts and white parts (so its not a contradiction). Also, emotions are usually not so precise to see, so it is expected people confound them and mix them in one single thing.

[@cyrillechidiac6368]

The law of non-contradiction only holds in the realm of formal logic. Once you step outside, it falls apart completely. So much, that you need to reformulate everything in order to respect "non-contradiction" If you write "p" automatically, you get "non-p", because the "p" you wrote "is", and everything else around, before and after the "p" ultimately "is" as well. It is how language functions. If you look at a chair and think "chair" your thought is true, but it is partial. you look at the chair, chances are, the chair is somewhere, and that somewhere is not a chair. So you could think, "chair and non chair", and it'd be correct. And if you come along and say "well, it's more accurate to say, "chair in non-chair"" well I could simply argue that you are constantly trying to find the formulation that'd fit your norms and standards. Once you factor in the world as is delivered at face value, "thing" and "not-thing" is how we differentiate between different things. "different things" is both "thing" and "not-thing" holding true for "every" "thing" you meant by "things", they are "different" and "same". It's raining on planet Earth and it's not raining on planet Earth. Same location, same pale blue dot, and both the statement and it's negation are true at the same time, all the time, making this both a contradiction and a tautology. Once you factor in point-of-reference, or point-of-view, and that language allows to adopt any point of view, the law/principle breaks down. As I've shown a statement can be both a contradiction and it's logical opposite, a tautology. Now if you say, "it doesn't count, it's just playing with words" I can reply, "well, you are playing with symbols". the famous "p" (or "x") you are talking about, isn't every "p", it's just the "p" of the equation you are making right now. [P & ¬P ] (that's a contradiction that is not allowed, yet, start ascribing a real value to P, and it becomes contradictions that are allowed. 0 and ¬0 is true for "binary language". A statement contains 0s and ¬0s, or 1s and ¬1s, held up in sequence in which the order depends on whether a detector detects something or not in a series of specific times. Yet it is both true that contradiction is allowed for the language, it is how it works, and not allowed for an individual value detection in binary language: thus, the law of non-contradiction is both true and false at the same time. And that is the ultimate disproval of the law of non-contradiction. You have a heart, and you do not have a heart can both be true. Maybe you're an automaton who thinks he's human : you do not have a heart, yet, you live just like if you had a heart. We would never know unless we open up to see whether you have a heart or not. Until we do, it's the Schrodinger's cat. The possibilities haven't collapsed yet. So IRL, we could say it's probable that you have a heart, since it is possible that you may be a robot unaware he's a robot, since it is possible that an advanced alien civilization are sending robots on Earth to study humans from within the social group. Since we cannot rule out these possibilities (unless we'd possess omniscience) then the statement "you have a heart" is only probable. Only in a world with an omniscient subject may the principle of non-contradiction be true, and even then, it's only true for "Him". Non-contradiction is not a human precept/principle/law/rule. It's beyond what we could know. It's unreasonable. We could go on for eternity of examples

[@vitornunes07]

There's no way you watched this video and is saying this

[@camdenddelgallo9611]

I disagree with emotions not following logic, in the example emotions are a spectrum, so this principle does not apply. However other bits of logic do. This law only applies to the fundamental building blocks, 2 or more statements when combined together can be a mix of true and false.

[@farhan8529]

A request to Philosophy vibe to make a video on propositional knowledgeable vs non-propositional knowledge

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you, we will look into this.

[@avivastudios2311]

I'm actually surprised you didn't talk about paradoxes.

[@Absolutedebates]

Would you like to have a conversation on this topic?

[@dzdawlatzwamel9795]

Nice video, thanks.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Glad you enjoyed

[@seanmorton7967]

Quick question. Does the Law of Contradiction as you have stated make provision in it for something like color-blindness as an example? Person A perspective is that the object is Green. Person B perspective of the same object is "other" Both would be absolutely true statements and empirical as tested by both parties. Could this same principle apply to other things in contradiction of same law? How would it deal with that particular situation?

[@tannermclaughlin5001]

That's difference between two people's available ability to judge the object. Still is whatever it is and isn't what it's not.

[@jasoncruz19800]

That would be the transition from pure strict empiricism to epistemology. Where we get rid of pure subjective(psychological justification in epistemology) based reasoning and make use of more stringent epistemological justification to account for fallibility. In that case we'd do a test to see which person vision is best aligned with the general population within whatever deemed healthy standard. The other person would be colorblind

[@jasoncruz19800]

In every case however, the law of contradiction holds. It must otherwise the very notion of math, science, thinking, reasoning, etc breaks down and so it's nonsensical to do literally anything

[@free-naturalist8912]

Host I have a question: Is it logical contradiction to say "I can create something in 0 seconds" is that a logical statement?

[@vitornunes07]

It's not contraditory

[@philv2529]

That is not an argument that is just an assertion.

[@pygmalionsrobot1896]

An excellent video and debate, but you guys really failed to hit the nail on the head here. First, you are absolutely correct about one thing ... in binary logic you do need Law Excluded Middle, hereafter as LEM. However there are situations where LEM is not helping and here is the example you need: "We will flip a 2 sided coin tomorrow at noon. I claim sentence S, that the outcome will be Heads." Until the coin experiment is completed, the statement S is neither T nor F. We would need to talk about potentials, potential truth, etc. It presents as a good case to argue that the statement S is in fact : True AND NOT True simultaneously, at least until the coin has been tossed. There are many probabilistic examples that could be devised, we are in Schrodinger Cat territory with this, and I would agree that LEM is totally fine and in fact needed for Binary logic ...indeed it is. But the situation is different under different logics and I have one that makes a ton of sense.

[@sandrajackson709]

So quantum particles or imaginative thoughts would sort or thought would sort of invalidate this logic

[@vitornunes07]

No

[@ramblingracheltrailtales]

Thanks.

[@ghanshamchandel1854]

Can you shed insight on Schrodinger's Cat in this context??

[@wowdontcare]

i was thinking about this too lol

[@dawnwatching6382]

The superposition is just one state though (as unintuitive as that sounds), so I don't think it contradicts itself.

[@dylance8609]

Most views of Schrödinger's Cat don't truly contradict the law of non-contradiction, but like most things in quantum mechanics it's all up to interpretation. With the currently most popular interpretation, the Copenhagen one, the nature of a wave function in superposition (a cat state or Schrödinger's cat) is not taken as a literal/ontological representation of that quantum state, but rather a mathematical representation. It views quantum mechanics as a means to gaining information (epistemology), but not necessarily a means to finding out the ontology/what's truly happening in a system. It treats the cat as both alive and dead, yet also does not state that the cat is actually so, only using that superposition to gain knowledge of the system. But with all that in mind, there is no actual contradiction or issue with the law of non-contradiction within that view. There are also hidden variable interpretations of superposition, but they also wouldn't pose any issue with the law of non-contradiction, since they basically go for the idea that the wave function always actually has a "hidden," concrete value. I'm honestly not aware of any current interpretations that would argue Schrödinger's cat is literally both alive and dead, but I hope that answered your question!

[@Spideysenses67]

Regarding superposition and wave/particle duality, we can simply hold that light is neither a particle nor wave until it is measured. Nothing about this assertion entails a contradiction, and is a very different claim to saying that light is both a particle and a wave which does entail a contradiction.

[@geraldharrison5787]

Is the law of non-contradiction a contingent truth or a necessary truth? I think it is possible that it is contingently true, but I am interested to see if this claim would violate it.

[@geraldharrison5787]

@@RafsanulHaq Yes, that is why I believe it is contingent. Every truth, I think, must be contingent given that God has the ability to falsify any of them.

[@geraldharrison5787]

@@RafsanulHaq I am not a Christian, just a believer in God. I have been struck, however, at two curious views among contemporary Christian philosophers that seem flatly inconsistent with God's existence. Namely, they believe - nearly all of them - that God exists of necessity rather than contingently. And they believe that God is constrained by logic. Yet if God exists of necessity, then there would be something God could not do: destroy himself. God can do anything, thus God can destroy himself (and thus God exists contingently as God exists by God's will alone). I think they believe existing 'contingently' is some lower grade of existence - which is most confused. And if God is constrained by logic, then there is something more powerful than God - the laws of logic. Again, this is an actual contradiction: the idea that there is something more powerful than an all powerful being is manifest nonsense. They are, of course, two sides of the same coin: they believe God's powers are constrained by logic and that this is not a problem (though it most certainly is) and as logic says a necessary existent cannot cease to exist, God's inability to destroy himself turns out not to be a lack of power, despite it obviously being so. I am not a Christian and never have been, so I am not sure if the idea of God as a 'necessary' existent is baked into doctrine or not or whether it is just a traditional belief (I know there are big name Christian philosophers - such as Aquinas - who held such views, though there are also big name Christian philosophers who rejected it and defended my kind of view, such as Descartes and Ockham). But it does seem to me incoherent. God is not constrained by logic, for God is the source of it and it is in precisely this way, I think, that God can do anything whatsoever, including things logic forbids. Logic forbidding something is no more or less than God forbidding it - but that does not constrain God, for what God forbids God can also allow if God so chooses. So God has the power to eradicate anything - and thus all things exist contingently (including God). This also means that God has the ability to make himself exist both contingently and necessarily - but as we are assured there are no actual contradictions, we are assured that God has not exercised this ability and thus exists contingently. But I am told - though never shown - that the idea of there being no necessary truths whatsoever is one that is incoherent (and told, relatedly, that the idea of a person who can do absolutely anything is incoherent). But no one has explained to me how....

[@geraldharrison5787]

@@RafsanulHaq But though God is not bound by logic, God is the source of it and so we should listen to it. And logic - and thus God - says that there are no true contradictions. Logic - and thus God - tell us not to believe any proposition that contains a contradiction. God has the power to bring about contradictory states of affairs, and so has the power to make it the case that he both exists and does not exist at the same time. But God tells us that he has not exercised this power, for God tells us - through our reason - that there are no true contradictions. And thus God tells us that God just exists, rather than exists and does not exist. The 'paradoxes' are no such thing, for they raise no problems but only reflect confusions on the part of the questioner. The confusion in question is confusing being able to do something with doing it. So, can God create a stone too heavy for God to lift? Yes, is the answer. God can do anything, so God can do that. But being able to do something is not to have done it. And as a situation in which God exists and a stone too heavy for God to lift exists is a contradictory state of affairs, and as God tells us that there are no such states of affair in reality, God is thereby telling us that he has not done such a thing. The same applies to all other questions of the 'can God do X' sort. Can God destroy himself? Yes. But he assures us he has not by providing us with proofs of his existence. And can God destroy himself and not destroy himself at the same time? Yes. But he assures us he has not done that either, by telling us that there are no true contradictions.

[@geraldharrison5787]

@@RafsanulHaq And so to continue my previous reply, when I said that those who believe God exists 'necessarily' - that is, believe God to exist 'of necessity' rather than contingently -believe something inconsistent with God, i mean that they believe something that God says is not true. They believe an actual contradiction: that a person who can do anything exists and also cannot do some things. Yet God tells us that there are no true contradictions in reality. So to believe something that is incompatible with God's existence is not to believe in the reality of something God is incapable of realizing, for God can realize any state of affairs whatever. Rather, it is to believe something that God tells us is not so.

[@jeff_costello]

​@@geraldharrison5787you are completely wrong God being all powerful doesn't mean he can create a universe with contradictions in it, God can't create a married bachelor, he can't create a squared circle...etc because it's nonsense, if he could do that for the sake of argument(which is impossible) then this claim is true and false at the same time and reason itself becomes unreasonable and absurd. Ofcourse the laws of logic are necessary, imagine a universe where people have different laws of logic( which is again impossible) then you claim is wrong for then and their claim is wrong for you therefore logic is subjective therefore this claim is wrong and true at the same time therefore this is bullshit therefore ofcourse the laws of logic are necessary unless you want to be illogical.

[@Mysterylife303]

Just found this channel, ❤❤❤

[@wotanstag1512]

The Law of non-contradiction holds in classical logic, but is invalid in paraconsistent logic (specifically dialetheism) as laid out by Graham Priest.

[@cliffhutchison861]

Can the Law of non-contradiction be both valid and invalid in paraconsistent logic as laid out by Graham Priest?

[@wotanstag1512]

@@cliffhutchison861 a paraconsistent logic and dialetheism reject the principle of noncontradiction.

[@obxurv]

Isn't this Clauvis' Law of Logic?

[@SliceySlicer]

Very well done!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you 😀

[@Chris-cs7nv]

I feel like in that situation you neither fully love or hate the person. you love part of him and hate another part of him so overall you have mixed feelings but you shouldn't generalize them as a whole because as a whole you don't love him and hate him at the same time, it's just the parts... it's like having two pets and loving one and hating the other and when asked whether you love or hate your pets you say I both love them and hate them. but I suppose one could feel something like loving and hating someone at the same time but it's not something rational so in reality he has two feelings about the whole and so the hate that he feels about one part of him can't be generalized to the whole. so when we love someone we love something about him but there are other parts that at the very least we neither love or hate. I don't know I feel like both loving and hating someone has to be an illusion. Or perhaps love and hate aren't opposite to each other and one can love and hate something. or perhaps sometimes in some situations love and hate aren't mutually exclusive. I just don't think it's possible for mutually contradictive things to both apply. an illusion of some short even... at the emotional level, much like the illusions that can trick our eyes into seeing something that we know isn't real and be amazed by what we just saw.

[@charlescawley9923]

Logic is a closed system. We can use logic only because we accept the word 'contradiction' where, if principles of logic were to strictly apply, that would itself would be false, to be discarded and treated as incoherent at best and nonsense at worst. By the second paradox of reason we cannot subject all sensory and input information to tests of logic without crashing thinking on overload. Instead we select only those affairs felt necessary or useful for day to day living to logical tests- the rest of what is remembered remains as non-logic. Suspension of the law of contradiction does not break that law but accepting we must be unreasonable to able to reason (hence the second paradox) shows contradiction persists and is vitally necessary to be able to think or, for that matter consciousness. (I think, hence I am... 'hence' not therefore because this is causative and time related and not a statement of logic). Most of Western philosophy has been fixated on a relatively primitive view of the status of logic. It is one tool and should be respected as such. But making it the be all and end all makes a non sense of our being. We are vastly more sophisticated. Logic is a closed system. We break out of that system without denying its importance and status by giving due respect for a word it would otherwise automatically discard: 'contradiction'. It is, perhaps, the most important non-logic word of all.

[@ArvinTR-tx1ew]

Thats right. Law of noncontradiction only applies to axiomatic systems that assume it as axiom. The process of defining a system is informal and arbitrary. The scope of enforcement of an axiom is only the axiomatic systems it is part of.

[@charlescawley9923]

@@ArvinTR-tx1ew Thank you. Very few seem to understand this, curbing their ability to understand society, culture and even the nature of human memory. In these areas, strictly contradiction does not exist but non-logic does... that is, untested by the application of rules of logic. Conflating social and cultural matters with physical reality appears to either question logic or to deny non-logic. It might partly explain the apparent abandonment of reason in some modern political discourse.

[@fernandoorozco5968]

is this similar to dialetheism

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

Regardless if the person making the statement that they both love and hate someone is abbreviating what they really mean, it is not a contradiction. While it is a common figure of speech, we all know what is meant when someone says that. They mean they love certain things and hate other things. Also, while I am an atheist, the law on non-contradiction comes into play with the question of god's omnipotence. Just because a god cannot violate this law, does not take away from his omnipotence or at a minimum, does not make it any less of a god. So, no, a god can't make a place both light and dark at the same time and a god cannot make people with free will without allowing evil to exist.

[@sen7826]

What about quantum mechanics? The superposition? Or Schrodinger's cat?

[@stoobeedoo]

One idea of superposition is that electrons move at such a speed that their positions to the nuclei are indistinguishable until they are measured. Their relative positions can still be calculated using the maths that quantum mechanics relies upon. So I guess superposition doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction, at least mathematically.

[@Cyberguyph]

The emotions one i find is incorrect in my views, the law of non contradiction is not a literal natural law given, it makes our reasoning and rationality valid, Love cannot be hate at the same time, you cannot "absolutely" hate that person wholefully and absolutely love them, if you absolutely hate them not temporarily you probably thinking of murdering them without any love at all, if you 'absolutely" love them you were thinking be with them forever or until life ends, it's like asking why is love hate? , why are emotions the color blue? So basically emotions or anything that exist doesn't violate the law of non contradiction, even God himself can't create something he can't create as it doesn't make sense which is just contradictory combination of words it's nothing, emotions are something. But i admire all your videos I've always watched them to gain many ideas✨

[@maecentric]

The law of non-condtradiction seems to assume that language and its rules are synonymous with truth. If something violates our laws of language it violates the laws of nature. For some reason this dosent seem right, I have a hard time beleiving language is so perfect, what is that assumption based on? It seems like a tautalogy

[@vshah1010]

Mathematical language is precise. But, this is more of a definition than a law. I don't call "the law of non contradiction" a law. You can show this on a Venn Diagram. It would be a definition, not a law.

[@marsh84722]

Here's the proof of the law of non-contradiction in summary 1) the law of contradiction is necessary to obtain true knowledge 2) we have knowledge that we want to believe is true 3) therefore we want to believe that the law of non-contradiction is true

[@Everywhere4]

And what if we have a true contradiction? Like „this sentence is not true“?

[@marsh84722]

@@Everywhere4 tricky, a statement is defined as "meaningful declarative sentence that is true or false". If that sentence cannot be true or false because of the contradiction problem then it's a non-statement. It doesn't evaluate to a true statement but doesn't evaluate to a false statement either because it's a non-statement.

[@Everywhere4]

@@marsh84722 But it seems to be a perfectly fine proposition. So why should we think that it is a non-Statement just to avoid a contradiction? Also if it is a non-statement then it can’t be true. But this is exactly what the non-statement says. So it seems like the non-Statement is right after all.

[@marsh84722]

@@Everywhere4 if we're not interested in avoiding contradictions then it should be okay that the statement is true and false

[@jasoncruz19800]

@@marsh84722 So 1+1=2 and 1+1=3? If so, then to be consistent we must disregard anything derived from that(which negates everything. It's called the principle of explosion). The end result is that you disregard the use of reason itself. Which means no thinking, no doing anything since action, potential etc al abide by the law of contradiction. The law of contradiction should be renamed to be equal to reason itself. Without it, then there's literally nothing.

[@NikoNikolaia]

Those first two examples could be true in both cases. Felix is a cat as in the cat in the picture; yet the picture of Felix is not a cat. The two guys who said the restaurant is closer or farther than 10 miles could be true depending if they physically were standing 10miles away exactly: one taking a step to be farther away from the restaurant and one taking a step closer. It’s all about perspective.

[@CarsonWeber]

Well done! I would have delved more into the definition of life. Of course a zygote isn’t equal to a 30 week old fetus in regard to age or development… but it is certainly alive, it is certainly developing/growing, and it is certainly of the species: Homo sapiens with its own unique genetic code. So, while it can be called a “clump of cells,” that terminology is not accurate to the reality before us.

[@philv2529]

The laws of physics say Shroedinger's cat is simultaneously alive and not alive

[@Cyberguyph]

The law of non-contradictions always applies, for example nothing cannot be called something while remaining nothing at the same respect, the quantum world you are talking isn't a contradiction as contradictions are just contradictory combination of words that doesn't make sense , the cat is either 50/50 alive or dead until you know it's not literally 100% dead and alive at the same time as it doesn't make sense the photons cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense, it's like asking Can God aksjhdjs? Which is just some combination of words and it doesn't mean God can't do anything it's just some contradictory combination of words the word "aksjhdjs" contradicts the concept of creating or ability as it doesn't imply any task there and we are using the word "can" which is logically impossible to answer and if it's not a thing then it's not a problem if God can't do it the inability to do nothing isn't an inability it's just means he can do Anything, so you understand what contradictions are it's like asking why is a square a circle? What is the smell of the literal color blue? Which you just mixed up a combination of nonsense words, i hope the creator of the video notices this comment👍

[@philv2529]

@@Cyberguyph so basically you are saying it's all semantics

[@Curious-i5m]

🛂8:44

[@symemoza104]

Can something be dying and not dying at the same time? I mean aren't we Humans growing and dying simultaneously?

[@cyrillechidiac6368]

Teal, it's blue and it's green, yet it's not blue and it's not green. If it's blue then it's not a teal. If it's green, then it's not a teal. If it's both blue and green, and not blue and not green, that's when you have a teal. Yes, teal is a beautiful color, and is perfectly legal.

[@3HeadedDracula]

I disagree with the last example. Love and hate are not opposites in the same sense as the other examples in this video. For example, if I stop loving a person, this does not mean I now hate them. There is a third option: I neither love nor hate them. This means that we have created a false dichotomy. The law of non-contradiction applies specifically to statements which are necessarily true or false, with no third option. Instead, the opposite of “I love them” is “I do not love them.” And the opposite of “I hate them” is “I do not hate them.” Once they are separated into two separate propositions, we now have two true dichotomies to which the law of non-contradiction can be applied.

[@jmvmSagun]

what about the schrodinger cat scenario in quantum physics

[@vitornunes07]

That was made by schrodinger to illustrate how to NOT interpretate quantum physics

[@markprice1270]

Serious question, how does noncon relate to transgenderism? Biology vs identity. With biology it appears to work; a biological man can’t be a biological woman. However, would noncon come into play with a biological man who identifies as a woman. I’m trying to think through this, not make a political statement.

[@jackcraig992]

Emotions do not work in quite the same way as rational reasoning, but nonetheless, they can of course be considered rationally. It is a fallacy to say that someone's love/hate for someone is not based on a rational decision, therefore we cannot rationally conclude that they love/hate them. There is, of course, objective fact here. To reconcile this with the law of non contradiction, we can say: 1. You love different parts of the person than you hate 2. Different parts of you hate the person than love the person 3. You love the person at different times from when you hate them 4. Some combination of the above 3 premises (probably the truth in most real life cases) But we cannot say that emotion cannot be considered rationally or, more broadly, that subjectivity cannot be considered objectively.

[@noob-ebike-guy]

Hmmmm, so I have to disagree! If I own a cat, it is clearly a cat right? However, what if my cat plays fetch? sits on command, rolls over, plays dead, attacks intruders in its house ect? So the Cat acts like a dog? Genetically it's a cat, but it's basically a dog. So is it not true that the cat is a cat, but isn't a cat at the same time? There must be a level of behaviour that could logically justify the statement, My cat is a dog.? Obviously the expanded description would be, my cat has all the characteristics of a dog. But if you can explain logically the initial statement, doesn't that make it true?

[@laurentius.dominus]

That is not a law.

[@vshah1010]

It's more like a definition than a law.

[@roshanbhatta2062]

How about Schrödinger's cat The cat will be both dead and alive until someone looks in the box. 😂😂

[@cyrillechidiac6368]

PS : love and hate are not opposites. you may only hate what you love. do your research

[@robertferraro236]

Here is one for you. The square root of 2, i.e. √2 is an irrational number. An irrational number multiplied by an irrational number gives an irrational number, it cannot give a rational number, and therefore √2 x √2 cannot equal 2. So √2 cannot be the square root of 2 and at the same time is the square root of 2, or 2 does exist and does not exist. We can look at this another way, a^2 + b^2 = c^2 so 1^2 + 1^2 = 2^2 So than answer for c would be √2 and again squaring it cannot give 2. Apparently, this caused a lot of cultist pythagoreans to commit suicide back in the days of pythagoras. This is the ultimate paradox and yes it breaks the law of non-contradiction. Would love to hear the content creator's perspective on this.

[@biblebot3947]

The reciprocal of an irrational number is always irrational. When multiplied, they give a rational number, 1. As for how to prove the above fact, if the reciprocal were rational, then it would have a ration reciprocal itself, which means the original number is both rational and not.

[@TheoLogicAlt]

But humans do this all the time, whether logic says it's possible or not.

[@mac2phin]

I am a liar. I just told the truth & lied simultaneously. Also, Schrodinger's paradox: the cat is dead and alive.

[@shane3428]

Telling the truth and lying are not mutually exclusive. You can do both simultaneously. But that has nothing to do with the law of noncon

[@christian1172-z9e]

I think you’d have to define liar. You seem to be defining it as someone who lies every time they talk. If you lie every single time you talk, you could not by definition tell people you are a liar. If you can tell people you are a liar, either you are not a liar or your definition is wrong and should be “Someone who lies a lot, but not always.”

[@darylkelly6077]

How did you lie ? Because everyone is a liar and thats the truth.

[@brainstormingsharing1309]

👍👏👍👏👍

[@dogamongstmen]

People debate this???

[@miguelsolana8590]

X can have multiple meanings, or just be one symbol. (Depending on the context it is being used in) Felix is dead and alive, no way to know. Jk. That's also kinda wrong, but I thought it was funny to mention a sa joke. Felix is not a cat, because he doesn't think of himself as one (for example, and probbably. We don't know for sure rn). For us he obviously is tho... Last one was tuff. But I got it after thinking about diffrent scenarios/ contexts/ possibilities to this (i must admit) riddle. If you travel by foot, it's more than 10 miles. If you travel by helicopter (shorter air-distance travel), it's not. That's why I think in logical/ reason based fields, it's really important to try and reproduce the experiments conditions AS BEST as you can every. single. time... Only then you can more or less confidently say if A->B (and so on). (If it also can be reproduced by others through review) Context is SO(ooooo) important...

[@TheCreativeintelligence]

🌧️🌧️🌧️🌧️🌧️🌧️☔☔☔☔

[@chararuggiero9367]

Ummm... What about Schrodinger's cat?

[@williambranch4283]

Only applies in binary situations. Most situations aren't binary.

[@Curious-i5m]

So why do we see contradicting laws

[@narenxdr]

Law of non contradiction: "I fear no man, but this......" *quantum superposition exists "This scares me...." edit: please explain this one too

[@dannydewario1550]

I'm certainly no expert on quantum mechanics, but it always confused me why physicists say "an electron is both spin up and spin down during superposition". Like why can't I say it's neither spin up or spin down until we make a measurement? Does me saying that violate some rule or equation in quantum mechanics? To me superposition is just the potential to have one or the other, not literally exhibiting both properties at the same time. But really I don't know enough to confidently say this is a valid description of superposition. For now it satisfies my brain enough so it doesn't violate any laws of logic.

[@makcings4764]

my guess is that its like a vector, in vector named A lets say there is X, and Y, X and Y represents states, and X and Y always Add up to 100% chance, so In two possibile outcome X and Y the chance for one of states to happen is 100% makes sense, right? now consider Y=50% X=50%, you could say A is Y and X at same time kind of, but also you can negate the contradiction by saying X,Y each equals 50% rather than speaking for entire A.

[@zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651]

The law of non contradiction, Islam can not be true or not true at the same time and respect. Stop by Efdawah, Scdawah, thought adventure podcast, Mohammed Hijab, Subboor Ahmad, Sapience Institute, muslim metaphysician, muslim lantern, Abdullah Al Andalusi, muslim Skeptic youtube channels live streams and have friendly fruitful discussions insya Allah.

[@mattk9089]

So, in a more modern context you can't be both a woman and not a woman, got it. Someone should tell the social constructionists!

[@descartes_8696]

Law of non contradiction states statement cannot be true and false at the same time. Basically, you can’t be a woman and not a woman at the same time, it literally makes no logical sense. At the end of the day, you do you, boo… I’m just saying, (actually, logic is saying) you can’t have it both ways at once. It’s a literal fallacy

[@vtbn53]

I hate this kind of formalisation of common sense.

[@arkeynserhayn8370]

Rigid formalism is not everyone's cup of tea.

[@vitornunes07]

Why

[@bernardwalsh9587]

Your raining/not raining example is false logic. You are leaving out the important conditions , at the same time and same place. Time you are correct but not same location.

[@daniellus4549]

Actually, it's not contradictory to say you love and hate someone as a whole at the same time. What would be contradictory is saying that you both love and not love the same person in the same respect at the same time. You are allowed to have mutual feelings for someone or something.

[@cheemsoftheocean7569]

at first I thought this video is obvious but wow this escalated quickly xD

[@rmdeb]

I learned the difference between a fact and an opinion such as this burger is delicious in second grade what the he!! Kinda discussion is this??? Put some working boots on and go do something productive

[@Everywhere4]

The law of non-contradiction is a universal law of nature and a man made fiction at the same time.

[@rmdeb]

Wow people really spend their time and life contemplating and discussing this cr@p!!!!

[@katrinaisalwayscorrect]

The world 🌎 is a giant contradiction. I see what you did here 😏

[@أحمدالدسوقي-ت9س]

You are very cool. If you were girls, I would have married both of you.

[@KittyBoyPurr]

What the fuck 😐❓

[@jeffk3746]

it is not logically clear that "love" and "hate" are opposites and contradictory. Both are powerful introspective feelings directed at a person, I think they may be more similar in origin than most people would admit