In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:40:54 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: > > >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > > > > > >> >Again, as has been questioned by another poster, what does "universal > >> >falseness", or "universally true" mean? > >> > >> I rather imagine universal self contradiction would be universally > >> false and tautological alternatives to universal self contradiction > >> universally true. > > > >May one assume that "The universal self contradiction" would be > >something Like "P and not P". > > More likely "not not".
if that is Zickian "universal self contradiction" , I was right to be dubious, as to me it is merely a double negative, poor grammar but not anything universal. > > >If so then one "tautological alternative" would be the law of the > >excluded middle, i.e., "P or not P". > > "Not" is the tautological alternative to "not not". The excluded > middle is the reason we must reduce possible predicates to an absolute > mechanical minimum.
Then where do "not not not" and "not not not not", and so on, fit in?