Law of
Non-Contradiction
Law of Non-Contradiction: (a) Not (p and not p) or
(b) (for all x) not (x is P and x is not P). It is not possible
that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same
context. I think the notion of time is more inherent in the Law as we normally
understand it , but that the notion of context is equally important.
Example: A table can not be both made entirely of wood and not made entirely of wood.
Possible Counter Example : Light (l) is both a particle (P)
and a wave (W). It makes sense to then say that (for all l) not (l is P and l
is not P) and this statement is true because light is both a particle and not
a particle.
Problem: Both notions of context and time were lost. For
physicists light is only considered to be a wave or a particle depending on
the nature (i.e. context) of the problem to be solved.
Light is not considered to be both a particle and a wave at the same
time.
More Counter Examples ? P = mostly empty space and x = a
table. Or perhaps, P = is free and x = Paul. In both these case it seems we
still need to be both temporally and contextually sensitive.
Finally, what about Plato's thought, "But what about the bigness and smallness
of fingers? Does sight perceive them adequately? Does it make no difference to
it whether the finger is in the middle or at the end? And is it the same with
the sense of touch, as regards the thick and the thin, the hard and the soft?
And do the other senses reveal such things clearly and adequately? Doesn't
each of them rather do the following: The sense set over the hard is, in the
first place, of necessity also set over the soft, and it reports to the soul
that the same thing is perceived by it to be both hard and soft?" What role
do context and time play here?
Plato's Republic Bk. VII, 524, 380 B.C.
Check Out Paul Martin's INSANE Response.
Back