[lit-ideas] Re: "Promissory Materialism" Correction
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:56:02 +0000 (GMT)
It would be a fool's errand, imo, to try to extract from this post any clear
argument against the view that A and B contradict.
However, all is not lost - these exchanges are confirming that my posts and
others' are getting through again.
Donal
________________________________
From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 15 November 2011, 18:16
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: "Promissory Materialism" Correction
dude, that you don't follow ain't my crib-
contradiction are generated by the form
a&~a
are you clear on that?
if o
a is a type of which two tokens have to show up
are you clear?
since you like english so much check your tokens and you see that they are not
tokens of the same type
negation is external and never internal when you need a contradiction
a- BANANAS ARE YELLOW
~a- IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT BANANAS ARE YELLOW
dig it/
best wishes
>>> Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> 11/15/2011 8:06 PM >>>
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
Please find our Email Disclaimer here-->: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer
Other related posts:
