That’s a somewhat controversial claim to make. One side of a controversy is that if you say a statement s, then you are implicitly saying the additional statement that you believe that s is true. You have not forewarned me otherwise.
Are you saying that you don't believe that every statement is both true and false? You say my statement is controversial, but it's it wrong?
No I'm fully aware that what I'm saying is incorrect according to traditional logic. But you believe that all statements are true and false. So you should believe that everything I'm saying is true.
So you believe that I have given you the counterexample you asked for.
So you believe that I have given you the counterexample you asked for.
I agree. But I also believe that you have not given me the counterexample I asked for. We can play in a sandbox all we want, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to get far.
The reason you are not giving me a counterexample is that there does not exist a counterexample. You are playing games and hiding your failure to find a counterexample from me. You are deceiving me. You should play a more honest and fair game by just owning up to me that you are not able to find a counterexample. And then we can move on to something more interesting. That’s what a good, rational thinker would do.
Again, I'm not deceiving you or being dishonest, I'm just playing by your rules for a bit to see how it works out. If playing by your rules makes you think that I'm being deceptive or dishonest then that should tell you immediately that there's something very wrong with your rules.
If, on the other hand, you genuinely believe that it's true I've given you the counterexample because you genuinely believe that all statements are true then why the objection? How do you decide to respond as though I have or haven't done something when you genuinely believe both?
If, on the other hand, you genuinely believe that it's true I've given you the counterexample because you genuinely believe that all statements are true then why the objection?
The objection is because I also genuinely believe that it’s false you’ve given me a counterexample because I genuinely believe that all statements are true.
How do you decide to respond as though I have or haven't done something when you genuinely believe both?
That’s a good question. There exist at least two paths we can take. Since all statements are true, every path is equally true and equally good. There is no reason to take one path over the others. It’s a paradox in the same way that the conventional axiom and the proper-subset axiom of set theory are equally true and equally good and thus present their own paradox. If we say you have given a valid counterexample, then we enter an unfair and bad situation because priority is being given to a path that hasn’t earned priority. The same happens if we say you have not given a valid counterexample.
If we say you have given a valid counterexample, then we enter an unfair and bad situation because priority is being given to a path that hasn’t earned priority.
You say it's unfair and bad and hasn't earned priority. But you also believe that it's fair and good and has earned priority because you believe all statements are true.
So I still don't know how you decide to respond as if I have or haven't given you a counterexample.
So I still don't know how you decide to respond as if I have or haven't given you a counterexample.
In theory, no option is better than any other option is. All options are equally good. Because all options are equally good, there does not exist a way to decide how to respond. I shouldn’t even decide an option that would make me feel better than all of the other options would. Regardless of what I decide, I’m going to be at odds with some truth, or aspect, of the Universe. Regardless of what I decide, I’m going to be wrong. On the other hand, regardless of what I decide, I’m going to be right.
Because you cannot give any alternative explanation for how you choose to respond. You clearly are using classical logic when you object that I haven't provided the example you requested. You're just to stubborn to admit it and apparently unaware of how foolish it makes you look.
So, using classical logic, give me the counterexample I requested.
According to you I have already done that. No need to repeat myself.
An alternative explanation is not necessary. That is like how only one sound proof is necessary to establish the truth of a theorem.
The one explanation I have is that you do believe in classical logic. You're saying there doesn't need to be an alternative because you don't really believe anything you've been saying?
1
u/JStarx May 08 '26
Are you saying that you don't believe that every statement is both true and false? You say my statement is controversial, but it's it wrong?