The law of non-contradiction ... contradicted?

[technomage]

Most of us are familiar with the law of non-contradiction. It's one of the three classic "laws of thought": briefly restated, the law of non-contradiction is "A statement cannot simultaneously be true and not true."

Philosophical laws can be problematic when applied to the real world. As a case in point, consider a single photon: a photon has (under certain circumstances) the properties of a wave, and (under different circumstances) the properties of a particle. When it is not under either of the specific circumstances, a photon is said to have both wave-like and particle-like properties--even though the two property sets are mutually exclusive in classic physics.

I posit that the "laws of thought" may have the same problem as a whole: they are not "proscriptive" laws that somehow force the universe to conform to them. They are, instead, "descriptive" laws--and as such, they are only as accurate as the observations that led up to the descriptions. Furthermore, since they are based on human observation, applying these laws to real-world phenomena is uncertain due to the limitations of human observation abilities.

Thoughts?

[shunyadragon]

Most of us are familiar with the law of non-contradiction. It's one of the three classic "laws of thought": briefly restated, the law of non-contradiction is "A statement cannot simultaneously be true and not true."

Philosophical laws can be problematic when applied to the real world. As a case in point, consider a single photon: a photon has (under certain circumstances) the properties of a wave, and (under different circumstances) the properties of a particle. When it is not under either of the specific circumstances, a photon is said to have both wave-like and particle-like properties--even though the two property sets are mutually exclusive in classic physics.

I posit that the "laws of thought" may have the same problem as a whole: they are not "proscriptive" laws that somehow force the universe to conform to them. They are, instead, "descriptive" laws--and as such, they are only as accurate as the observations that led up to the descriptions. Furthermore, since they are based on human observation, applying these laws to real-world phenomena is uncertain due to the limitations of human observation abilities.

Thoughts?

I agree!!!!!

[nightbringer]

I have know very little about physics but, so I hear, there are varying interpretations of what's "going on" in quantum world. Consider this a matter of faith if you like but I'd be willing to bet all my limbs on the law of non-contradiction still holding.

[seer]

I posit that the "laws of thought" may have the same problem as a whole: they are not "proscriptive" laws that somehow force the universe to conform to them. They are, instead, "descriptive" laws--and as such, they are only as accurate as the observations that led up to the descriptions. Furthermore, since they are based on human observation, applying these laws to real-world phenomena is uncertain due to the limitations of human observation abilities.

Thoughts?

Well we may view something as a contradiction - but that I think would be the result of our limited knowledge. I mean if the of law of non-contradiction does not hold universally then your above proposition could be both true and untrue - then we are all speaking nonsense.

[seer]

I agree!!!!!

You agree? Is that true or untrue? It could be both - correct?

[MaxVel]

Interesting topic. Perhaps another way of looking at it is that the laws of thought are something like grammar rules: they describe the correct way to use language - the labels we attach to things and concepts. If we ignore or break these laws then communication becomes difficult and possibly impossible, and likewise rational thought becomes difficult and ultimately impossible.

Looking at your example from physics, under classical physics a wave and a particle are defined as two different and mutually exclusive things. What modern physics has done is to expand the definition of those words such that something can be at times one, and at other times the other, and at still other times either one or the other (undetermined??). Therefore I don't see that as being a contradiction to the Law of Non-Contradiction - if it was being said that a photon is both a wave and a particle at the same time, where those words still had the 'classical physics' meaning then that would be a nonsensical statement (IMHO).

I posit that the "laws of thought" may have the same problem as a whole: they are not "proscriptive" laws that somehow force the universe to conform to them. They are, instead, "descriptive" laws--and as such, they are only as accurate as the observations that led up to the descriptions. Furthermore, since they are based on human observation, applying these laws to real-world phenomena is uncertain due to the limitations of human observation abilities.

The problem with this approach is that it undermines science. If the real world is in fact contradictory (things can be both X and not-X in the same way at the same time) then the scientific approach is doomed. Firstly because it would become impossible to know what the observations scientist A reports actually mean ('then the temperature rose 10 degrees' could mean 'it fell 10 degrees' or 'it rose 1 degree' or 'it rose 100 degrees' or 'it stayed the same', etc etc); and our own observations of a repeat experiment wouldn't have any logical connection with what was observed in any other identical experiment.

[pancreasman]

Interesting topic. Perhaps another way of looking at it is that the laws of thought are something like grammar rules: they describe the correct way to use language - the labels we attach to things and concepts. If we ignore or break these laws then communication becomes difficult and possibly impossible, and likewise rational thought becomes difficult and ultimately impossible.

Looking at your example from physics, under classical physics a wave and a particle are defined as two different and mutually exclusive things. What modern physics has done is to expand the definition of those words such that something can be at times one, and at other times the other, and at still other times either one or the other (undetermined??). Therefore I don't see that as being a contradiction to the Law of Non-Contradiction - if it was being said that a photon is both a wave and a particle at the same time, where those words still had the 'classical physics' meaning then that would be a nonsensical statement (IMHO).




The problem with this approach is that it undermines science. If the real world is in fact contradictory (things can be both X and not-X in the same way at the same time) then the scientific approach is doomed. Firstly because it would become impossible to know what the observations scientist A reports actually mean ('then the temperature rose 10 degrees' could mean 'it fell 10 degrees' or 'it rose 1 degree' or 'it rose 100 degrees' or 'it stayed the same', etc etc); and our own observations of a repeat experiment wouldn't have any logical connection with what was observed in any other identical experiment.

All true. Perhaps what it does show us is our 'laws' of logic reflect our experience in the world as viewed from our frame of reference. At the limits of our observations the 'laws' of logic seem to get a little fuzzy around the edges.

[Chrs]

I believe the law of contradiction is "It's impossible for something to be true and false at the same time in the same manner" - you don't get a photon acting like a particle and a wave at the same time, so I don't see this as a contradiction to the law of non-contradiction.

If you're going to go after a law of logic based on modern physics, I'd probably go for the law of the excluded middle - when an electron is orbiting an atom it's represented as a probability function. Not actually sure if this would cause an issue or not... hmm.

[ZackMartin]

I think we need to be careful about talk of "rejecting" the law of non-contradiction. I don't think anyone denies that in very many circumstances it is entirely valid. I think the dispute is simply over, whether it is valid under absolutely all circumstances, or whether there might be some limited exceptions.

As to the argument based on wave-particle duality - and I've heard similar arguments based on quantum superposition - I'm hesitant on reaching a conclusion, because I'm not a physicist.

Personally I find this argument much more convincing: "This sentence is false". Is that true or is that false? I would say, both. A more elaborate example, of which I am particularly fond:

PLATO: What Socrates is about to say is false.
SOCRATES: Plato has spoken truthfully.

Another one: "The set of all sets which are not members of themselves." Is that set a member of itself?

Other people respond by trying to argue that these kind of statements are somehow invalid statements. Maybe. But I think accepting such statements as valid is the simpler option than trying to work out a rule which excludes them from being valid, because when you actually sit down and try to concoct one, you run into a lot of difficulty.

Zack

[shunyadragon]

I believe the law of contradiction is "It's impossible for something to be true and false at the same time in the same manner" - you don't get a photon acting like a particle and a wave at the same time, so I don't see this as a contradiction to the law of non-contradiction.

The problem is you do get a photon behaving like a wave and a particle at the same time.

]

[shunyadragon]

I think we need to be careful about talk of "rejecting" the law of non-contradiction. I don't think anyone denies that in very many circumstances it is entirely valid. I think the dispute is simply over, whether it is valid under absolutely all circumstances, or whether there might be some limited exceptions.

As to the argument based on wave-particle duality - and I've heard similar arguments based on quantum superposition - I'm hesitant on reaching a conclusion, because I'm not a physicist.

Personally I find this argument much more convincing: "This sentence is false". Is that true or is that false? I would say, both. A more elaborate example, of which I am particularly fond:

PLATO: What Socrates is about to say is false.
SOCRATES: Plato has spoken truthfully.

Another one: "The set of all sets which are not members of themselves." Is that set a member of itself?

Other people respond by trying to argue that these kind of statements are somehow invalid statements. Maybe. But I think accepting such statements as valid is the simpler option than trying to work out a rule which excludes them from being valid, because when you actually sit down and try to concoct one, you run into a lot of difficulty.

Zack

the problem with the Laws of Logic as well as with the Law of Contradiction is that they evolved as human constructs to help understand our world, and are subject to human perceptions and assumptions. The Law of Contradiction remains subject to how humans define contradictions and non-contradictions.

Ultimately our existence is most likely not contradictory, whether Created by God or just simply the product of natural processes, but this ultimate nature is not likely definable by human intellect.

[picasso]

I don't know too much about physics either, so just how unusual is wave-particle duality? Does it really threaten the law of non-contradiction when applied to basic logic? (an idea or statement not being able to be true and false at the same time, for example)

[shunyadragon]

I don't know too much about physics either, so just how unusual is wave-particle duality? Does it really threaten the law of non-contradiction when applied to basic logic? (an idea or statement not being able to be true and false at the same time, for example)

I do not consider the Law of Non-contradiction under threat by the nature of our physical reality in any form.

It is just pummeled unmercifully and beat to near death by those trying to misuse it to justify their own world view.

[windy36]

Most of us are familiar with the law of non-contradiction. It's one of the three classic "laws of thought": briefly restated, the law of non-contradiction is "A statement cannot simultaneously be true and not true."

Philosophical laws can be problematic when applied to the real world. As a case in point, consider a single photon: a photon has (under certain circumstances) the properties of a wave, and (under different circumstances) the properties of a particle. When it is not under either of the specific circumstances, a photon is said to have both wave-like and particle-like properties--even though the two property sets are mutually exclusive in classic physics.

I posit that the "laws of thought" may have the same problem as a whole: they are not "proscriptive" laws that somehow force the universe to conform to them. They are, instead, "descriptive" laws--and as such, they are only as accurate as the observations that led up to the descriptions. Furthermore, since they are based on human observation, applying these laws to real-world phenomena is uncertain due to the limitations of human observation abilities.

Thoughts?

There is no such thing as a non-contradiction in my opinion, so my theory is that everything contradicts itself.

[Eudaimonist]

There is no such thing as a non-contradiction in my opinion, so my theory is that everything contradicts itself.

Example?


eudaimonia,

Mark