A Thought On Contradictions and Truth

If a thing is a thing and it's made of parts. If you can remove its parts, is it still the thing? If it is, then it's not all of the parts. So how many can be removed before it's no longer the thing? If we can remove all of the parts and still have the thing then a thing is not a thing ‒ a contradiction.

This suggests a contradiction is true but valid when an object in a contradictory statement is reflexively dichotomous. The dichotomous element can be subjective, qualitative, quantifiable, or objective. To give an example of this, imagine we have a plushy toy football. It's a football and not a football because it's not a real regulation football. Next I can say a regulation football isn't a football because the word football is separate from the actual thing of a football. As Sartre put it in Bouville,

I murmur: `It's a seat,' rather like an exorcism. But the word remains on my lips, it refuses to settle on the thing. It stays what it is, with its red plush, thousands of little red paws in the air, all stiff, little dead paws. This huge belly turns upwards, bleeding, puffed up -- bloated with all its dead paws, this belly floating in this box, in this grey sky, is not a seat. (ibid,p.180)

Meaning that contradictory statements are not or can be made to be not contradictory because there's always a quality that can be used to distinguish one like or near identical object from another.

Moreover this suggests strict definitions require more symbolic parts in a computational sense.[0] Whereas greedy quantifiers capture more allowing for statements that are fuzzily true. For instance, using natural language, we can ask, is a toy football a football? The answer being, "Yes." So if I were to write, "A football (ϝ) is not a football (¬ϝ)" and the object I was describing was the plushy (ρ). Then for the subject of the statement we have (ρ ⊂ ϝ) or (ρ derives from ϝ) true. For the predicate we have (ρ ≠ ϝ) = true.

Suggesting a semantic object can never equal a material object. So a real material regulation football can never be said to be a linguistic football because the semantic object is by its very nature different. Even restricting the domain to non-greedy quantifiers in a purely linguistic environment. A linguistic football (λ) is not a linguistic football because of positional difference (i.e. λ = λ implies λ_l = λ_r, a more correct statement would simply be λ). Suggesting all objects are only true as themselves ‒ by themselves. Everything else then being aggregation.

Meaning if all things can be true in the correct light as themselves. Then basically truth is all logical connectives through a perspective lense. To illustrate this, imagine there's a little girl named Sally. Her mom is asked how she behaves. She glows, "Sally is a good girl!"

The question is then asked to her teacher. The teacher having to deal with her on a daily basis knows the little girl well and states bluntly. "Sally is a bad child."

It would seem in this scenario both positions are true or at least both are true at different times.

Then there's the fourth perspective.

Imagine we're then told Sally is severely mentally handicapped. To such an extent, in fact, that neuroscientists consider her to lack the status as an independent rational actor. This being determined based on fMRI's, showing no activity in her brain, and thus indicating that all her actions are random.

In this case it's perhaps unfair to say Sally is good or bad because she's not actually her own person.

So we have all four primary logical connectives:

a = sally is good
b = sally is bad

a and b                  (∧ = and)
a doesn't imply b    (¬ = not, → = implies)
b doesn't imply a
neither a nor b       (∨ = or)

This can be thought of as an identity matrix, where true = 1 and false = 0.

a b (a∧b) ¬(a→b) ¬(b→a) ¬(a∨b)
1 1    1         0         0         0
1 0    0         1         0         0
0 1    0         0         1         0
0 0    0         0         0         1

When combined together these primitive logical operations give us the exclusive-or (xor), biconditionals, tautologies, and contradictions.

So what's the truth? All logical connectives and all possibilities.

The truth, apparently
is whatever you are allowed to say/write.

The truth is what you experience and perceive at any particular moment.
ie. this one.

The truth is what you experience and perceive at any particular moment.
ie. this one.

Now imagine trying to see all viewpoints all the time. Maddening, no?

reply to post by Xtraeme


Maddening yes. No wonder each culture have gods that seem crazy to outsiders.
Trying to be a god would
just drive you crazy.
Mmmmmmmmmm.

Have you studied Buddhist philosophy?

What you are saying reflects what Buddha was putting across, that is, that nothing has an inherent existence. An object is a collection of things that are not the object and those things are a collection of things which are not the things that constitute the object ad infinitum.

The mind perceives an object and labels it, the flaw is that we then believe that the object exists from its own side, and we form a mental attachment, which then results in suffering at a later date due to the impermanence of all things.

It is believed that when you understand everything in this way you cease to form attachment which leads to a cessation of suffering. (the concept of self included)

Edited to add - so there is no contradiction, just a mistaken view of how things are.

Originally posted by Xtraeme

The truth is what you experience and perceive at any particular moment.
ie. this one.

Now imagine trying to see all viewpoints all the time. Maddening, no?

edit on 8-10-2011 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)

Excellent write up!
I understand it 100%.

Makes you wonder how the people with knowledge of the "truth about truth" use it to their advantage.

Originally posted by HumansEh
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Maddening yes. No wonder each culture have gods that seem crazy to outsiders.
Trying to be a god would
just drive you crazy.
Mmmmmmmmmm.

In a roundabout way, this is why I've always been fascinated by autistic kids.



In the video above Carly, an autistic girl, describes seeing thousands of frames of a persons face when she looks at them, and because of this, it's so overwhelming she has to look away. In her own words @7:37,

Our brains are wired differently. We take in many sounds and conversations at once. I take over a thousand pictures of a persons face when I look at them. That's why we have a hard time looking at people.

To give you an idea of what this might be like, here's footage of a lightning strike seen from a camera that takes 7,207 frames per second! The video starts at 18:25:53.121 and ends at 18:25:53.256, less than one second (.135 seconds)!



The human eye typically sees things up to a speed of about 30 FPS. Now imagine if the human eye, like in Carly's condition, could see more. It would be so much information that it would probably quickly become overwhelming.

Perhaps the most interesting thing Carly has to say is, "I want something that will put out the fire." (@6:02) And then later at (@7:07) when Carly's asked, "Why do autistic kids, cover their ears, flap their hands, hum, and rock?" She responds, "It's a way for us to drown out all sensory input, that overloads us all at once. We create output to block-out input."

I think for many of these kids the reality filter has come unhinged.

Objective (absolute) truth is very simple

Subjective (relative) truth is extremely complex and nearly impossible to corral as something definable. Of course, this is due to the enormous range of contextual relationship adjustments that are available between WHAT IS (we'll call it IT) and what exists within IT (as holon components in contextual relationship with the holon whole known as IT), as well as the much more expansive range of available relationship adjustments between IT and all else that shares even the most insular of relative reality confines with IT.

What most people consider "truth" is the subjective (relative) truth of relative juxtaposition, which is only true relative to whichever perspective is making the determination, and only for a split instant. Of course, this isn't - and can't ever be - anything more than a snapshot from one point of perspective, and can only ever be true about that one POV at that one instant.

Big "T" Truth isn't relative, and contextual relationships don't exist for big "T" Truth. It does exist though, even if within its own sense of what Truth actually is.

in his book "quantum theoretic machines", stern points out that truths are constructed from ODD-numbered topological crossings, in a similar way to your identity matrix.

for example, a mobius strip contains a unified topology based on a single self-cross. constructing a similar surface using two turns instead produces a two-sided topology.

with this in mind, it is proposed that multiple odd-numbered self-crossings across intersecting dimensional planes results in very complex unified topologies which can be shunted using matrices, as you have shown.

the effects of which, as proposed by stern, is consciousness.

Originally posted by Xtraeme

The truth is what you experience and perceive at any particular moment.
ie. this one.

Now imagine trying to see all viewpoints all the time. Maddening, no?

edit on 8-10-2011 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)

I would think kNot trying to see all viewpoints all the time, would be maddening.

Tis better to question outright than to believe outright.

Ribbit

Here's a contradiction for you to consider:

Imagine you are walking alongside the interstate on the shoulder, which the interstate has signs on all access points saying pedestrians prohibited, and a police officer pulls up behind you, gets out of his car, walks up to you and says:

"Do you know it's illegal to be walking on the Interstate?"

You reply:

"Yes! There are clearly signs posted at every access point, saying just that."

At which time, you stick your hands in your pockets, which causes the officer to say:

"Get your hands out of your pockets!"

You reply:

"What part of my earlier statement did you not get, that I am clearly a non-conformist, thereby, to get a non-conformist to take their hands out of their pockets, you'd have to tell them to put their hands into their pockets."

The officer then says:

"Well then, put your hands into your pockets."

You reply:

"My hands are already in my pockets. Have you been drinking?"

As you are on your way to jail, handcuffed in the back of the officer's vehicle, you can chuckle at being a true non-conformist, by contradicting yourself any chance you can.

I've enjoyed your thread!

Ribbit

reply to post by ButtUglyToad

You've certainly understood the more mischievous aspect of the thread. This is why dialect by itself is rather dangerous. When I was originally mulling over the idea I realized how tactics like this are often used in political rhetoric to seek a way to take contradictory statements and unwind them; or to show contradictory elements that exist innately in an opponents phraseology as a result of this idea of linguistic objects being inherently reflexively dichotomous. In almost all instances the person is trying to circumvent genuine intention to score points or to muddy another persons actual meaning. Sadly, there isn't much authentic dialogue these days.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

You've certainly understood the more mischievous aspect of the thread.

This is why dialect by itself is rather dangerous. When I was originally mulling over the idea I realized how tactics like this are often used in political rhetoric to seek a way to take contradictory statements and unwind them; or to show contradictory elements that exist innately in an opponents phraseology as a result of this idea of linguistic objects being inherently reflexively dichotomous. In almost all instances the person is trying to circumvent genuine intention to score points or to muddy another persons actual meaning. Sadly, there isn't much authentic dialogue these days.

edit on 8-10-2011 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)

Very wise werds!

Alas, while ego rhymes with go, rarely does it!

Confucius says:

"While you can pick a fight any way you wish, never pick nose with tampon, unless it's someone else's nose you are picking a fight with."

Ribbit

I apologise, I have misspoken.

I would edit my above post to read that the complex matrix of all possibilities is shunted via the network of odd-numbered topological crossings. which is how consciousness able to perform its quick calculations.

silly me.

ETA: this painting is used as an example of the unification of contradiction using a topological crossing. you can only see "one side" of the truth.

reply to post by tgidkp

I would say consciousness is something that selects amongst a set of possible truths. Which is odd because to be able to pick amongst a set of things requires being of them, but outside of them. In a simplistic sense we can think of reality in terms of newtonian billiard balls, where a chain of events all string together due to one thing interacting with another. But consciousness is different because it by itself is the instigator. In a way then consciousness can be substituted with the word will. Meaning will is a causal structure.

reply to post by Xtraeme


I disagree. I am trying to say that consciousness does not "select" a truth so much, but rather, orients itself to the data and the truth sorta "falls out".

with reference to kabbalah, this actually seems rather profound.

I am not being pendantic by saying this.

If a thing is a thing and it's made of parts. If you can remove its parts, is it still the thing?

No.

Because the thing has not been named yet.

Then for the subject of the statement we have (ρ ⊂ ϝ) or (ρ derives from ϝ) true. For the predicate we have (ρ ≠ ϝ) = true.

Sure, now that it has been named football.

When combined together these primitive logical operations give us the exclusive-or (xor), biconditionals, tautologies, and contradictions.

But that is the same thing as saying there are only four combinations of ways to take apart a football. Or are we dropping the whole "take it apart and see if it is still a thing", premise. Because the last time I checked an Identity matrix is wonderful for doing transforms, rotations, and distortions, but the one thing it doesn't do is loose any of the data. Which is what taking something apart is.

So as brilliant as I feel this thread is, I'll have to say that it has a tiny bit of bait and switch going on as well. Showing that one can insert a multidimensional matrix between any two undefined incomes and outcomes does not tell us how things come to be or cease to exist.

Where in this conciousness model does it name things on it's own with a name that seems right. When does a noun pass from existence?

Other than that I found the thread a riviting read, with enlightened contributions.

Will read again.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

with reference to kabbalah, this actually seems rather profound.

The more I read the more I think the old kabbalists were on to something. I don't consider myself to be particularly spiritual, but I have to admit I find their way of thinking utterly fascinating.

I disagree. I am trying to say that consciousness does not "select" a truth so much, but rather, orients itself to the data and the truth sorta "falls out".

The words "orient" and "select" have an isomorphism, in the sense that selection is rarely blind and orientation is often a function (f(x)) of a set of data (x). The result, as the persons subjective truth, can then be seen as motivated by some extant factor (x). However the person can choose in an instant to turn their choice on its head in spite of the data. It's this capriciousness that gives consciousness such a unique texture. It's neither random nor is it wholly guided. It's self-referential, but at the same time dependent on external factors.

I would say consciousness is a good candidate for being represented as a sort of transcendental quantity in that we can always pick out new layers that weren't previously evident (i.e. the linguistic "me" is different from the "thinking" me -- otherwise why would I talk to myself?, the existent 'beingness' of me is separate from the rational me, etc.). This is why despite all the work I've done with FUSMs, GAs, NNs, and AGIs. It never approaches real general intelligence because it only ever selects based on a fitness function with some initial training data.

What we need to start doing, on the computational end of things, is create a tool-set where the program can talk to itself and rewrite itself using something like C#'s reflection suite. Unfortunately when people try this sort of experiment the application inevitably inserts a statement that causes the application to GPF. This is why I think we need a computational model that treats all logical operations as potentially valid for continuous, self-healing runtime. But, granted, this is easier said than done.

But that is the same thing as saying there are only four combinations of ways to take apart a football. Or are we dropping the whole "take it apart and see if it is still a thing", premise.

I should have been a bit more explicit. The first post was meant to show that contradictions occassionally have moments of being both true and valid even though this often thought to be false. The second part, using the example of Sally, is meant to show how all logical positions have validity amongst the universal set.

Because the last time I checked an Identity matrix is wonderful for doing transforms, rotations, and distortions, but the one thing it doesn't do is loose any of the data. Which is what taking something apart is.

In a computable universe all things are built with logical primitives. So while data can exist as simply an amorphous blob. That data ultimately has to be processed with some form computational system. In standard symbolic logic there are 2^4 logical connectives. All of these are dependent what I would dub the identity columns (i.e. ¬(a→b) ∨ ¬(b→a) is equivalent to "a xor b"). So the data is somewhat different (though I'd argue not wholly different) from the logical primitives as the basis for boolean algebra.

Personally I see the data binding with the numerical operation when considering epistemic aspects of the identity element. To try to give a general sketch of what I mean by this, think about a + 0 = a. I can cancel the addition and the zero and write, a = a, because the identity element is seen to be identical to the addition operator. Without the zero there is no cancellation. This suggests an implicit existence of both when one or the other is present. This is why I argue that zero as the additive identity element isn't neither positive nor negative. I reserve this as a description for the empty set,

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/mu4e914376.png[/atsimg]

Instead 0 as the additive identity element is both positive and negative (a conjunction). Which is sort of a strange way of thinking to be honest.