Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Let´s say it has a meaning and it doesn´t have a meaning, then.
Please give a source for this.
No source. I said it. You are welcome to quote it.
I am not a philosopher, nor a theologian. I don't need to give "source" to what I said in these fields.
No sorry I just didnt understand it.Are you implying my statement wasn´t meaningful?
I said the falsity of contradictions implies they have a meaning. You said 'maybe, in a colloquial way'. I suppose you mean an informal as opposed to a formal way. Then you post an analogy abourt audio signals, but I think that is even less formal that my comment. So if I have it right, please explain what formal and informal meaning is*, and how this applies to contradictions.Is it meaningful to you?
No, that wasn´t me.I said the falsity of contradictions implies they have a meaning. You said 'maybe, in a colloquial way'.
It wasn´t meant to be formal. It was meant to illustrate my understanding.Then you post an analogy abourt audio signals, but I think that is even less formal that my comment.
And I responded:I said the falsity of contradictions implies they have a meaning.
The more you are aware that you aren't a source of authority in a field, the more you have you be cognizant of those views that are. I'm not sure if a typo or negatory word got snuck into there but you're basically saying "I don't know much about this subject, so trust me on my word, m'kay?"
I'm not sure which is more nonsensical--the view that you aim to purport or the method in which you purport it.
Maybe an analogy helps?
You have an audio signal. It produces sound.
You inverse the phase of the audio signal. It also produces sound.
Now you play back the two signals simultaneously: No sound.
No, that wasn´t me.
It wasn´t meant to be formal. It was meant to illustrate my understanding.
I thought you might be interested in understanding where I am coming from.
Since you have by and large ignored my other attempts to explain my position, I am tempted to assume that this is not the case.
If however you have any interest in my responses, it might be a good idea to sometimes give me a sign that you have understood them (even though you may not agree with them), or which part you haven´t understood.
I have asked you several times what e.g. what "I did it, but I did not do it" as a whole means. It doesn´t communicate any meaning to me - maybe I´m too stupid or something.
My apologies for the confusion then.quatona didn't say anything about colloquial, I did. I said that I might say, colloquially, that a contradiction is false. I was applying my comment in that post to your first sentence not the second. Sorry that wasn't clear.
The only logic i have studies in this regard says contradictions are false. That would be propositional logic, and truth tables relating to conjunctions.By colloquial I was meaning that in casual conversation I might say that a contradiction is false. I wouldn't in a more formal discussion.
Well what do you expect to be there for a meaning to be there? I am not sure how well the concept of meaning is defined actually, but we might do well to look at what is thought to be necessary and sufficient for a phrase to be meaningful. So please give us some criteria...I have asked you several times what e.g. what "I did it, but I did not do it" as a whole means. It doesn´t communicate any meaning to me - maybe I´m too stupid or something.
You can say that but I would like to see it argued from premises. Maybe you have axioms that I don't?And I responded:
The meaninglessness of a two part statement prompts us to conclude that at least one if its components are false.
I would like you to answer my first question first: which meaning it communicates to you?Well what do you expect to be there for a meaning to be there?
I do not have a rigorous definition of meaning to back this up, but I feel if someone says "A and not-A" then that phrase means precisely what it says i.e. A and not-A.I would like you to answer my first question first: which meaning it communicates to you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?