On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:42:41 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:19:22 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: >> >> >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, >> > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >Zick has presented no "exhaustive alternatives", he merely keeps >> >> >> >talking >> >> >> >as if there were some. >> >> >> >> >> >> And Verge keeps talking as if there were none. >> >> > >> >> >I am talking as if it has not been established whether there are any, at >> >> >least until one has assumed something on which to base distinguishing >> >> >alternatives. >> >> >> >> Assumed the truth of something used to establish the truth of what is >> >> assumed. >> > >> >I am familiar with assuming something true in order to show that it is >> >actually false, but have never seen any assumption successfully used to >> >prove itself true. >> >> One doesn't. One initially assumes something true and then uses its >> tautological alternative to show that the tautological alternative is >> absolutely false which proves that the initial assumptions is >> necessarily and universally true by inference. >> >> Example: >> >> I assume initially but can't prove "A" is universally true. >> >> I then examine "not A" to see whether it's universally false. If so >> the universal truth of "A" is demonstrated because the tautological >> proposition "A, not A" is exhaustive of all possibilities for truth. > >If you claim that you can prove "A" this way then you are using the law >of the excluded middle, which you said you did not assume to be valid..
I don't assume the law of the excluded middle to be valid in general expecially where compound predicates are involved. It's actually only valid in the one instance where single universal predicates are used.
>> >As usual, I request an example of Zick's alleged assumption used to >> >prove itself true. >> >> Well perhaps the general claim is too obscure. >> >> >And as usual, Zick will not provide one. >> >> See the example of the reasoning involved above. The initial >> assumption "A" is just an assumption and does not and cannot be used >> to prove itself. That should go without saying. However we can >> recognize the fact of self contradiction in "not A" if it is present >> and if present we can assume "not A" is universally false from that >> and infer that "A" must be universally true because its tautologically >> exhaustively alternative is always false. > >If you claim that you can prove "A" this way then you are using the law >of the excluded middle, which you said you did not assume to be valid.. >> >> >> The fact of universal self contradiction is not necessarily obvious in >> examples like "not A" because there is nothing apparent in the example >> to indicate it. But in an example like "not not" the fact of self >> contradiction is obvious > > Not to me, as I have no idea what "not not" is saying that could be >interpreted as self contradictory.
You don't see the "contradiction of contradiction" as self contradictory? My but you are uncommonly slow.
>The only sensible interpretation I can think of is that for every >proposition A, "not not" returns the proposition "not(notA))". >And this interpretation confounds Zick's argument.
And how about the proposition "not(not)"? What does that return?
>> and we infer with confidence that "not" must >> be absolutely and universally true because its tautological >> alternative "not not" is obviously and necessarily self contradictory >> and hence false and the tautological combination (not, "not not") >> exhausts all possibilities for truth. > > >Zick's "inference with confidence" fails to inspire me with the least >iota of confidence that "not not" is anything but doubletalk.