Or perhaps you should observe that I have only used one meaning. Can you not distinguish them?
) Comprehensive = complete in scope and detail
) Comprehensible = capable of being completely understood in scope and detail
I haven’t been speaking of the ability to understand or be understood. The statements that are of the form “Peanuts are (or are not) healthy” are not comprehensive, not complete in detail, and thus not “truth”, but merely a suggestion that is perhaps often the particular case but sometimes not.
Logically speaking, if a statement is not true in any circumstance other than alteration of language, then it is not true, meaning that it is not always true. Usually the circumstances are not mentioned, thus misleading the reader (due to defying the second angel - comprehensiveness = completeness).
So this isn’t an issue of contradiction, but of incompleteness or in-comprehensiveness.
I don’t really think that has anything to do with Godel, but…
Something being incomplete doesn’t mean that you can add. It means that there is something missing. But perhaps it must always be missing (Godel’s theory). The theory of Relativity is incomplete in that it cannot handle spinning objects. But one cannot add anything coherent to it to make it handle those objects. The theory merely has a limited useful scope, not completely (or accurately) mapping all reality. It will always be incomplete (and at least slightly erroneous).
I am pretty sure that there is no logical level where you can reduce “red is not red” to a truth. Why are you trying to?
The axioms for number theory where show to fold on themselves. We either need better axioms, or we cannot add.
And likewise, there are many instances where x is not x… Red is not red and peanuts are healthy and not healthy are two examples. We have something beyond there mere logical statement that PROVES that they are both true and that there’s more to simply saying x is not x is true is all instances.
I don’t know who told you that theory, but I doubt it. I have been adding just fine for years.
Both of your examples have been proven on this thread to be incorrect examples. I have yet to see an example of your theory that “X is not X” can be a true statement.
I have yet to see a valid example.
As I said early on, if you have to add something to what is said, then what is said is not comprehensive enough to be called true and thus by default, is false. And if you have to add anything to the statement that “red is not red” in order to make it true, then as it stands, it is false.
You will never find a valid contradictory set of true statements anywhere. Playing with the wording/semantics to try to make them seem correct is just childishness.
Well, I made no promises about changing your mind. We both know that wasn’t going to happen. I am satisfied that I have sufficiently proven my point. You can continue to believe whatever lets you feel good.
This is bullshit.
An angel is a messenger, in scriptural lingo and literally in Greek, the language in which the scriptures were written. Nothing more or less.
You’d do well to check some of your ideas, lest you make a fool of yourself.
This is not an example of ‘absolute’. All truth is interested, and only has meaning through context.
But in sheer practical terms its not even true. Colour perception involves a lot more than “cones”. It is cultural; it relates to ambient tone; it is relative to experience. Cones are just one tiny aspect of colour perception.
A person can be colour blind and have to same cones to you and I, and in different circumstances grey can appear red, and green can appear gray. It all depends.
An angel was regarded as a “messenger” because it (the concept) was telling of the foundation cause of reality (aka “God”) and springing from it. Socially a messenger from the highest dark authority in the land was referred to as “an angel” as well, unless he was creating trouble, then he was “a devil” or “demon” (depending). The Greeks were big into secret/dark manipulations, as were so very many (and still are). But I am not referring to the later development of social orders to represent prior ontological, conceptual entities, but rather the original entities themselves.
Your perspective is that of a simple mind, believing the complexity of Man and the world to be a trivial puzzle.
Yes! Not just physical reality. All reality is always 100% true with itself.
Exactly! It’s in-comprehensive. Until all the facts are exposed or all premises related to a thing are revealed, it cannot be established if it is true or not. But then why would this be considered as false? If something is not completely revealed to us, it’s not necessarily false.
Peanuts are healthy—in-comprehensive—(neither true nor false) Peanuts are always healthy—comprehensive—(clearly false)
Peanuts are healthy for Jane. Jane has no allergies to peanuts. Zinc is extremely good for her health. Peanuts are a good source of zinc. Jane’s need for zinc far outweighs any possible detrimental impact peanuts may have to her health (calories etc.)
All things considered: Peanuts are healthy for Jane—comprehensive—(true)
For something to be true, everything about it must be true. But for something to be false, anything about it can be false.
It isn’t so much that we don’t know enough in order to assess the statement. It is more that the statement cannot be always true (we already know that much). It is impossible that peanuts would be healthy for all people at all times. For peanuts to be healthy, there are conditions that must be met. At best, the statement could be a provisionally true (as you have pointed out).
The logical fallacy known as “Over-generalization” is very predominant throughout history, creating all kinds of misunderstandings, hatreds, racism (and just about every “-ism”), and even wars. Ir is the same thing as Presumption, the seed of ALL sin.
I think James is right. 620–750 nm 400–484 THz. Call this x for short. Let’s define red. Red = x
Two people are observing x. Although x is unchanged externally, the two people see x differently because they take in x differently based on their physical make up. Internally x manifests itself to these two people differently. Regardless of what the two people see internally, x is still x externally. So this is not a case of contrary statements being true. x is still x and the two people are both observing x but interpreting it differently. Of course this is provided that red is defined as x.
If red is defined as what someone internally sees when observing x, then it becomes a purely subjective or interpretive thing. Like beauty. In that situation it would have to be the case that statements such as “the box is red” would be in-comprehensive as red is a matter of interpretation and would need a subject before the statement can be considered as comprehensive enough to qualify as either true or false. In that case, two people can interpret x differently. But this still doesn’t lead to two contrary statements as being true. At no point can the two people deny that x is x. They can only point out that their interpretation of x is different and this is not a case of contrary statements being true. This is case of two entirely different statements being true.
The problem with defining it as what someone internally sees, is that the name “red” is externally given to the person. So when Mommy points to an apple and says “red”, whatever color the child sees, is [by definition] red. How else would they know to call it “red”?
The question is, how does a person get the names backwards?
I can think of only two excuses for that. Either they can’t distinguish them well enough that they misunderstood which was to be called which (color blind), or perhaps their neurology became corrupted after learning the words such as to mismatch the words with what was being perceived (color stupid).
I don’t know how colour blindness works but hypothetically if some subject/object altered 620–750 nm 400–484 THz to something like 495–570 nm 526–606 THz before producing the final image then it would complicate things and make it so that despite the fact that the subject is looking at red, she/he/it is actually seeing green because internal mechanisms have altered 620–750 nm 400–484 THz to 495–570 nm 526–606 THz (if that is at all a hypothetical possibility) But this still doesn’t produce something like: the box is red all over and green all over at the same time . Or something like the box is red whilst it is not red at the same time. The box is always the same colour. Internal interpretations won’t change this external fact. They would just produce a different sort of statement. Looking at the box, Jack sees red, Jane sees green. The box is red but not green. It appears green to Jane because she is looking at the box behind green glasses. This is not the same as “the box is red and at the same time the box is green” (two contrary statements being true) which as you say, is always impossible.
In fact, I would go so far to say that JSS is wrong when he says that the word “red” refers to an EMR frequency range. When we say that an object is red we are not saying that the object is reflecting electromagnetic waves within certain frequency range. Rather, as you say, we are describing what we internally see – what is otherwise known as quale or quality. The fact that the word “red” was invented long before people knew anything about electromagnetic waves supports this idea. Basically, what is red is red regardless of what kind of electromagnetic waves are emitted by the object.
But I agree with his main point that two contradictory statements cannot be both true.
Ecmandu’s statement “X is red and X is not red” looks like a contradiction but it isn’t really because what it states is in all likelihood captured by the statement “An apple looks red to some and green (i.e. not red) to others”. That’s hardly a contradiction.
