I don't quite follow this, even as to whether by saying "the contradiction is obtained by logical negations" you mean to admit exactly that, and so admit A and B do contradict because one is the negation of the other. "Since you hair chopping", for example, is not clear or good English. Certainly I can see no clear argument in your post that supports the view that A and B do not contradict. Donal London ________________________________ From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, 15 November 2011, 17:31 Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: "Promissory Materialism" Correction sorry, since you hair chopping the contradiction is obtained by logical negations your reading if correct ought to be (meaning the reading of your sentences) a it is not the case that there is snow here ~a there is snow here [you may decide to eliminate the space indexical and presume implicit the termporal one, or fix them to an arbitrary fixed point of choice- then you have acontradiction >>> Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> 11/15/2011 7:16 PM >>> My posts on the following, and the issue of materialism/physicalism as preferred terminology [which suggested 'World 1' is preferable to either], went astray last week. I take it these posts were not received on the list. Having re-subscribed, where I had previously proposed:- "A. Here there is snow. B. Here there is no snow. Assuming "Here" refers to same point in space-time, these A and B contradict." Adriano then commented:- "strictly they aren't even contradictory". But they are contradictory and strictly so. A is equivalent to "There is such a thing as snow here". B is equivalent to the negation of A viz. "There is no such thing as snow here". So A is a p, and B is its negation non-p: these do contradict, as any p and its logical negation contradict. D London Please find our Email Disclaimer here-->: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer