Try Denying This Argument

Metaphysics & Epistemology
81

Even in three-valued logics (such as Priest’s Logic of Paradox) where a proposition can be assigned the third value “both true and false,” the system still rests entirely on binary distinctions. Take the classic example “this statement is false.” Every single word presupposes duality:

  • “this” as opposed to not-this
  • “statement” as opposed to not-a-statement
  • “is” as opposed to isn’t
  • “false” as opposed to true

The third value itself is defined in opposition to the two binary values (T-only and F-only). It does not transcend “this ≠ that”; it merely labels certain sentences as having both values at once. The same holds for fuzzy logic and AI systems—they simulate non-binary behaviour on top of binary hardware.

Any attempt to describe, formulate, or even discuss a non-binary logic still requires stable distinctions (A=A) to identify “this proposition,” “that value,” “true,” “false,” or “both.” Those distinctions cannot be grounded in the three-valued system itself; they are presupposed by it.

None of these examples demonstrate an actual contradiction where the underlying foundational distinction (A=A) is true and false at the same time. They are abstractions—parasitically built on top of Truth.

82

Hi,

Honest feedback. I agree with @Banno . The argument is incoherent, as written. The most obvious issue that jumps out at me is that what you seem to have is a list of premises that need clarification in order to become a good enough argument to evaluate.

For example, in premise 1, the term “reality” is vague, and the premise consists of two assertions:

  1. We observe reality.
  2. Logic is how we make sense of reality

The problem with that it that while a reader may agree with the first assertion, they may not agree with the second. Since you grouped them together, it makes your argument easier to knock down because both claims must be true together.

You should be more explicit regarding what you mean by “make sense” and, for that matter “it.”

Moving to premise 2, The term “describe” is vague to me, as is the phrase “patterns we see in the universe.” Additionally “discovered via Logic” should be a separate premise, as it requires its own evaluation. Also, I am not what you mean by “Logic.” Are you referring to Formal Logic or do you just mean something like “rational thought” or “common sense.” Finally, I am not convinced that logic “discovers” anything. In my experience, it is meant as an evaluative practice which seeks a truth value.

Premise 3 contains more than one premise, which is problematic as discussed above. Regarding the claim “logic presupposes truth” – I find it vague since, at this point, I don’t know what you mean by “logic.” Also, the term “Truth” is vague and potentially value-laden. Judging by the definition I saw you draw elsewhere (“non-contingent, Eternal precondition that creates and coheres all stable distinctions”), there’s no reason anyone should have to “give” you that definition without a fight. You should probably draft a separate argument to explain to readers what an “eternal precondition” is and why (or, how?) it “creates and coheres” “all stable distinctions.” Also, I am not certain what “all stable distinctions” means. Maybe clarify what an “unstable distinction” is? Not sure.

I will stop here, as your use of the words “Truth,” “Logic,” “Eternal Origin,” etc. make the rest very hard to follow and evaluate. Once the terms are defined and the argument structure is refined, there might be something here to debate.

All of this nonwithstanding, after making your argument, you make a statement that appears to be an unqualified assertion promoting the justification of circular arguments. Is that just a random thought, or is it meant to support what you think is your own circular argument?

Also, would you please define “non-circular ascent?” I’ve genuinely never heard of that.

1 Like
83

They are absolutely relevant because if you admit to them your whole objection collapses, which is why you are deliberately avoiding answering them.

No, you are straw-manning the argument. The argument uses Logic (capital L) to show that we are talking about Logic at the ontological level, but you keep insisting on using “logic” in the narrow epistemic sense. This is a category error.

Perception is 100% dependent on the stable patterns (the ones you keep deflecting from in my questions). These patterns have a stable logical order to them that is independent of your mind. For example, light and sound waves act logically and repeatably across all times and worlds.

84

In this case, one can simply argue that binary logic is a tool that fails in the face of a reality that transcends binary thinking. The fact that we use binary thinking merely proves that we have a tool deeply ingrained in our way of thinking. But at the ontological level, the existence of propositions and meanings where the excluded middle does not apply has been demonstrated. In that sense, your binary framework does not transcend the epistemological level. And our thinking proves insufficient to capture non-binarism within its framework without violates its principles. Although the very fact that we discover non-binary logics already indicates that thought can contemplate a reality that transcends the binarism ingrained in our thinking.

In any case, at the ontological level, the world reveals itself as something that exceeds binary thinking, the prime example of which is language and meaning. There is a third element that is neither one nor the other (or both) in the most fundamental binary framework, if by ‘fundamental’ we mean ‘the total logical structure of the universe’ (Logos). It does not matter how many times you say that we use binary thinking to understand the universe. That statement merely tells us that we use a binary tool, but as has been shown, this tool does not fully correspond to the structure of the world.

85

No, that is not what the argument claims.

I am not asserting a process ontology in which becoming is foundational and being is secondary. The 7 lines claim the direct opposite: all contingent emergence and material flux require an Eternal non-contingent Origin as their precondition.

The rock example was meant to show exactly this. When we say “the rock is eroding” or “the rock is becoming sand,” we are still treating “the rock” as the persisting subject of that change. That enduring identity (A=A) is not replaced by the flux—it is presupposed by any coherent description of flux. Without that stable ontological identity, there would be no “it” that could be said to be changing at all.

This returns us to lines 3–4: Truth creates and coheres the individual distinctions (A=A) and the ordered structure we observe. Those distinctions are the necessary precondition for any intelligible talk of becoming, emergence, or material flux (line 5).

86

I think I can see the source of our confusion. In post 52 I accidentally used the word “atemporal” where I meant “temporal”:

I genuinely apologise for that slip—it was a single-word error and clearly caused confusion.

The definition the argument has always used is made explicit in line 4 of the original post:

“Eternal” was placed in parentheses immediately after “non-contingent: existing before the universe” precisely because that is the meaning I have used throughout. It has never meant “for all time inside time.” It has always meant non-contingent / the precondition that must exist for the universe (and time itself) to exist and cohere.

87

Yes, the key being “we are treating” the rock as the subject. As I said initially, it is your/our observations which establish the identity in what would otherwise be a flux in which the boundaries of identity vary. Otherwise, who is to say what constitutes an identity? Minus observer, is a planet more or less an identity that the solar system in which it forms, or the atoms to which it returns? Identity is the ultimate abstraction.

1 Like
88

You are correct that the 7 lines need to be presented as a proper deductive chain. Here they are in the form of three nested syllogisms (ascending) with explicit major and minor premises and conclusions. The ↓ arrows indicate that each conclusion serves as the grounding premise for the next syllogism in the deductive chain:

Logic (Lines 2–3)
Major: Logic presupposes Truth as precondition.
Minor: We successfully predict, communicate, and navigate.
Conclusion: Logic aligns and applies the distinctions created and cohered by Truth, helping distinctions (A=A) navigate the universe’s ordered structure—yielding harmonious reason (illogic deviates).
↓
Truth (Line 4)
Major: Truth (A=A, 2+2=4) must be non-contingent.
Minor: Truth, which Logic presupposes, must pre-exist the universe.
Conclusion: Truth subsists as the precondition that creates and coheres individual distinctions (A=A) and the universe’s ordered structure.
↓
Origin (Lines 6–7)
Major: Any denial uses Logic, stable distinctions, and intentionality—all presupposing Truth.
Minor: These exist only because the Origin exists.
Conclusion: The Origin is the foundational precondition that enables and sustains intelligibility and genuine free relational pursuit.

This is the explicit “if… then…” deductive chain you asked for. Each syllogism follows necessarily from the previous one, leading to the final reductio in lines 6–7.

The 7 lines are a condensed excerpt from a longer 29-page paper that already contains these syllogisms in full. The paper makes the logical connections explicit in the way you are requesting.

89

Hi Kelly, thanks for the honest feedback.

The 7 lines are a condensed excerpt from a longer 29-page paper that already contains the full nested syllogisms and detailed explanations of the terms. I posted the three nested syllogisms from it in post 88.

For the key terms you asked about:

  • Creates and coheres: Truth actively brings genuine distinctions into existence as distinct things (creates) and holds them together in stable, ordered relationship (coheres) so that A really does equal A and “this ≠ that” remains true.

  • All stable distinctions: Every genuine distinction that allows coherent reality—this vs that, true vs false, one thing vs another. There are no “unstable distinctions” in the sense of distinctions that genuinely exist and then fail to remain distinct; the argument holds that all real distinctions are stable because they are created and cohered by non-contingent Truth.

  • Eternal precondition: Non-contingent ground that must exist for the universe (and time itself) to exist and cohere. It is not “for all time inside time” but the precondition outside of and prior to any contingent universe (line 4).

Regarding the circularity comment you mentioned:

This is a direct reference to Cornelius Van Til. He claimed that truly non-circular transcendental arguments are impossible for finite beings. My claim is that this argument achieves exactly what he said was impossible.

“Non-circular ascent” simply means the argument starts from the ground up (line 1) and ascends via logical reductio and nested syllogisms without question-begging or assuming the conclusion.

I hope the above clarifies the structure and terms. Happy to discuss any specific point further.

1 Like
90

I think you might need to learn some logic first. Just calling a premise Major or Minor doesn’t make it so.

Someone else wrote up a Guide

The sorts of connectives I’m looking for are “If/Then”, “All”, or “Some”. In the guide I linked:

The form there is valid.

The form I was using before is the Modus Ponens so it’s a little different. But I’ll type out the form so you have choices between two different forms.

Major: If P then Q
Minor: P
Conclusion: Therefore, Q

Notice that “P” appears twice. So there’s the part where you set up the consequence of something and then the part where you assert something after the implicature to draw the conclusion Q.

Do you think you can rephrase your Lines 2-3 into either of these forms such that you’ll be using the terms “If/Then” or “Some/All” and restating the exact same premise wherever the same propositional variable appears?

91

I wasn’t avoiding anything. I was asking you to clarify the nonsense parts in the question. You still failed to explain why my objection collapses if I admit to them.

You don’t seem to understand even what strawman argument is. Logic is a subject of its own, which spells with the capital letter like Philosophy or Biology or English.

I have given you the example with the human baby’s perception with no logic required. Try to consider with dogs and cats’ perception. They can see, smell and tell their food, their masters, and their toys with just their own bodily senses with no logic involved.

Likewise you can see the trees, cups and apples, and know what they are without any logic involved in your perception.

You would only apply logic unto the arguments, propositions or statements claimed in philosophical discussions, or finding the universal laws in the scientific enquires.

92

Thanks for the clarification – and for the link to Cornelius Van Til. Skimming the entry about him helps me frame where you’re coming from a bit. Apologies if I just jumped right in without reading all of your responses to others. It’s quite a lively thread :slight_smile: I only just joined this forum yesterday, and decided to immediately engage rather than lurk, which is a more typical tendency of mine. Is this argument you’re working on going to serve as a framework for something you’re considering publishing?

93

Logic doesn’t presupposes anything. It can only tell if propositions and arguments are valid or invalid, true or false after logical analysis on the arguments.

Daily perception doesn’t need A=A. A=A is the law of non contradiction. Most daily perceptions on reality work directly and simply between the objects and perceiver.

94

Indeed.

For one, his conclusions actually follow from the premises in the actual arguments he presents.

Yes, indeed. There is little display of logical structure in their posts. It’s instead a simple repetition of a transcendental claim along the lines that understand requires something labeled “eternal origin”. Good of you to try to help them.

Their use of Grokipedia saddens me. I hope this does not become a norm hereabouts.

The theological references align with the title, the presumption that the “argument” is to be disproved rather then proved; perhaps a rhetorical attempt to hide the lack of structure.

Cheers. I liked your step by step response, pointing out the incoherence of each. I’ve at present not the patience for such detail. The trouble is that helix probably lacks the capacity to see what you have done to their position. But yours was an excellent post.

1 Like
95

The argument never claims that Logic itself is a “tool” (line 2 only calls symbols and language tools), nor does it ever describe Logic as “binary.”

The argument holds that Truth, by its very nature, creates and coheres stable distinctions (A=A as “this ≠ that”). You appear to be distinguishing little-l logic (the epistemic, human mind-dependent kind) from Logic (the Eternal precondition that aligns and applies the stable distinctions created and cohered by Truth). Logic cannot transcend Truth, because Logic necessarily requires those stable distinctions in order to function at all.

To assert that “there is a third element that is neither one nor the other (or both)” at the level of the total logical structure of the universe (Logos), you must yourself employ stable distinctions: you are distinguishing “binary framework” from “non-binary,” “tool” from “reality,” “epistemological” from “ontological,” and presenting your own claim as holding rather than not holding. Those distinctions cannot be grounded in the non-binary structure you propose—they are presupposed by it. The claim therefore performs the very structure it denies.

As shown in my previous post, none of the non-binary logics or examples (including language and meaning) generate a genuine ontological contradiction; they remain parasitic on the foundational distinctions they claim to exceed.

96

You seem to think logic as a whole follows from A=A. That’s a very simplistic view.

In most recent logic, truth is defined in extensional terms. The sentence f(a) is true if and only if a is one of the items that satisfies f.

Truth is not primitive.

That is, the basis of your “argument” appears misguided. Logic does not start with truth, but defines it in model-theoretical terms.

And again, this is only one of very many misunderstandings in your writing.

Philosophy is hard. And it is not just making stuff up.

97

We treat the rock as a distinct identity because it is a distinct identity—independent of human minds or observation. Human minds are themselves entirely contingent on stable distinctions that must already be in place at every level of reality: cells must maintain their identity to survive, single-celled organisms must distinguish nutrient from toxin, multicellular organisms must distinguish food from poison, sound waves must propagate consistently, etc. These distinctions exist prior to and independently of any observer.

To even argue that “identity is the ultimate abstraction” or that boundaries vary arbitrarily in flux, you must first employ stable distinctions (rock vs. not-rock, planet vs. solar system, observer vs. no observer). Those distinctions are not created by observation—they are presupposed by any possible observation or argument whatsoever (lines 4–5).

98

Philosophy is, indeed, hard. The uninitiated misunderstand this, thinking it is exactly as you describe – just making stuff up. I grind at this every day, and just when I think I am making progress, I read a philosopher’s work that is so elegantly, yet powerfully rigorous that I realize I am still riding around with training wheels strapped to my bike.

3 Likes
99

You’re right that any argument operates with stable distinctions already in place. But that only shows they are presupposed in use, not that they are primitive or given independently of thought. In Speculum Mentis, Collingwood makes precisely this point: even the most basic logical unit—the “one”—is not given but produced by an act of abstraction that treats a manifold as a unity by suppressing its internal differences. But “the one” and “identity” are doing the same work here: to treat something as one is already to treat it as self-identical (A = A). So the stable distinctions you’re appealing to are not prior to observation or cognition; they are the result of prior acts of individuation that make something count as a unit at all.

1 Like
100

Yes.

There was a cartoon a while back of a beginner skater trying to stay stay upright, then falling on their face; and an expert skater doing a series of exquisite manoeuvres, before again falling on their face.

The mistake so often shown by newbies is a presumption that they have discovered something important. It’s the same mistake as made by masters.

It’s not up to us to follow the title and show why the argument is wrong, although it is, and we can have fun picking it apart. It’s up to the author to show that they have found something worthy of our attention. They haven’t.

1 Like