Doesn't the idea that something can't be both true and not true amount to the same thing? The Law of Non-contradiction?
For instance, I could use your exmaples and say:
"It is true that something is either sort of bumpy or not sort of bumpy."
And I could do the same thing with the other example, had I more time to play with the words.
Anyways, cool post Xnull. You touch on a lot of good points.
Aside from the "I think therefore I am" thing, I think it is also absolutely true that both truth and falsity exist.
Since, "I think, therefore I am." is an absolutele truth, you can deduce that truth existing is an absolute truth, and hence the statement "I am not." would be absolutely false.
Another cool proof for truth's existence is to ponder what if truth didn't exist. Then, it would be true that truth doesn't exist... a contradiction.
All of these assume the Law of Non-contradiction, though, which is something we have no proof of.
For instance, I could use your exmaples and say:
"It is true that something is either sort of bumpy or not sort of bumpy."
And I could do the same thing with the other example, had I more time to play with the words.
Anyways, cool post Xnull. You touch on a lot of good points.
Aside from the "I think therefore I am" thing, I think it is also absolutely true that both truth and falsity exist.
Since, "I think, therefore I am." is an absolutele truth, you can deduce that truth existing is an absolute truth, and hence the statement "I am not." would be absolutely false.
Another cool proof for truth's existence is to ponder what if truth didn't exist. Then, it would be true that truth doesn't exist... a contradiction.
All of these assume the Law of Non-contradiction, though, which is something we have no proof of.
Comment