On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:57:03 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:40:54 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >> >In article <email@example.com>, >> > 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.
And certainly not self contradictory, huh?
>> >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?
Do "not" and "not not" exhaustive possibilities for truth? If they do who cares where various compoundings fit in at this juncture.